Marc Alexander to the Minister of Justice: Can he confirm that it is the Government's policy not to change the legal status of cannabis; if so, is he confident that other policies implemented by his ministerial colleagues are consistent with this commitment?
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice): The Government has no plans to change the current legal status of cannabis. Ministers act in accordance with this commitment.
Marc Alexander: Does the Minister agree that teaching children how to use drugs safely is in direct conflict with the law for which the Minister has responsibility; if so, why has he condoned the distribution of a Ministry of Youth Development drug education handbook to schools this month, given that it takes this kind of harm minimisation approach?
Hon PHIL GOFF: That booklet is not at all about teaching children how to use drugs safely. The thrust of the drug education programme is to stop children and young people from using drugs. But it is a bit like alcohol. We say that young people should not use alcohol, but we say particularly strongly that they should not use alcohol and drive a car. The same approach should be taken with cannabis-that is, one should not use cannabis, but, most particularly, one should not use cannabis and drive a car. That is a sensible approach to take in this education programme.
Russell Fairbrother: How does the National Drug Policy seek to deal with the problem of drug abuse?
Hon PHIL GOFF: The National Drug Policy adopts a three-pronged approach. The first is to try to control the supply of drugs by law enforcement; the second is to reduce the demand for drugs, which is done through drug education; and the third is to apply treatment for those suffering harm from drug and alcohol abuse.
Richard Worth: In the light of the spiralling use of methamphetamine and other drugs, why is the Government chopping the number of residential or inpatient treatment beds for drug addition so that there are now about 110 fewer; and would it not be responsible to increase the number of beds rather than axe them?
Hon PHIL GOFF: My colleague the Associate Minister of Health did just that, as Mr Worth might be aware. He has opened a new residential drug treatment facility for the central region.
Craig McNair: Can the Minister indicate what steps, if any, he is taking to persuade other parties, with whom his Government has a cooperation arrangement, that legalising cannabis, freeing up access to drugs for young people, and generally softening up current drug laws is undesirable?
Hon PHIL GOFF: It is not my role to write drug or any other policy for any other party in this House, but my advice to anyone is that we want to see less use of illicit drugs and less abuse of alcohol, and all parties should take that approach.
NANDOR TANCZOS: Does the Minister support the development of a consistent and integrated framework for regulating all drugs; one that is based on expert evidence of the best way to reduce harm to society and individuals from drug use, and does he think we might be able to see such a common-sense approach implemented after the next election?
Hon PHIL GOFF: If the member is asking me to endorse his recently announced drug policy, I will decline to do that. I believe that all drug and alcohol policy should be evidence based.
Marc Alexander: Is the Minister satisfied with the situation whereby one arm of the Government is attempting to uphold the prohibition on drug use but another promotes educational programmes that do not have drug avoidance as their primary goal, and in fact, seek to avoid promoting abstinence in case it-and I quote from page 7 of the drug education handbook-"stigmatises experimentation with drugs as deviant behaviour"?
Hon PHIL GOFF: There is in fact consistency in the approach of all Government departments and all Ministers in this matter, and the advice we take on drug education is to follow international best-practice. That drug handbook does just that for schools. It tells schools the most effective way of communicating to students in a way that will get an improvement by way of drug reduction, and, hopefully, drug elimination.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Has the Government received any other letters or reports on the question of abstinence; if so, from whom?
Hon PHIL GOFF: That is an invitation on a different matter, and I decline to answer.
Marc Alexander: Has the Minister finally read the Ministry of Youth Development drug education handbook, given that he stated in the House on 19 May that he had not at that point, and has he expressed any concerns to the Minister of Youth Affairs or the Associate Minister of Health that their Green Party approach to drug education is inconsistent with the law?
Hon PHIL GOFF: To the best of my knowledge the drug education handbook for schools on the best practice for eliminating and reducing drug use is not the policy that has been announced by the Greens, though there may be some parallels. If the member looks at the work that has been done, for example, by Roger Sowry as an Associate Minister of Health under National, he will see that Mr Sowry talked a lot about harm minimisation. World Heath Organization guidelines have been followed by successive Governments in this country. We look at following best practice-
Hon Roger Sowry: Oh, spare us!
Hon PHIL GOFF: I can table it if the member likes. Would he like me to?
Marc Alexander: Is the Minister aware of research undertaken by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research and the National Drug Research Institute in Australia showing that the prohibition of cannabis does work in limiting the amount consumed by heavy users, and does he agree that this evidence justifies retaining the current legal status of cannabis in New Zealand?
Hon PHIL GOFF: I have not looked at the particular document the member has mentioned. He might like to pass it to me. But I am aware that a number of states in Australia are trying different methods of dealing with the drug problem. I think we should take an evidence-based approach and see which is the most effective.
Marc Alexander: Has the Minister seen new research released this week that shows that one in ten 18 to 29-year-olds used P in the last year, that the drug is now very easy to obtain, has an established link with violent offending, and leads to serious psychological harm; if so, does he agree that the only message our young people should hear on this drug is: "Do not use it"-a message in line with the law, but seemingly not with the Government's drug education policy?
Hon PHIL GOFF: That claim most certainly is not correct. This Government put, I think, $53.6 million into the Budget this year, predominantly aimed at reducing the supply of P. We have before this House at the moment the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 3), which again cracks down and takes a tough approach. We have consistently increased police resources and Institute of Environmental Science and Research resources to try to stop the scourge that methamphetamine represents for this country. I do not think the Government can be faulted on that issue.
NANDOR TANCZOS: Does the Minister think that an approach of demonising cannabis, and opposing even moderate law reform, combined with unquestioning support for the alcohol industry, even to the extent of implacably opposing any restrictions on alcohol advertising-a position followed by at least one party in this House-is a common-sense approach to the problem of drug abuse?
Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Phil Goff can comment in relation to his portfolio, but not other people's policies.
Hon PHIL GOFF: It is very important that drug education is factually correct and that it does not exaggerate, otherwise it is counterproductive. The efforts that we are making are to ensure that young people get evidence both about alcohol abuse-that is, the most abused drug in New Zealand-and marijuana use, because from respective studies we know that marijuana has very harmful effects on those who are mentally ill, those who are quite young, and those who use it frequently.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister received reports on which parties in this Parliament support the view generally enunciated by Mr Alexander, and which parties support the rope-head view expressed by a certain member of this Parliament?
Mr SPEAKER: Unfortunately, the Minister cannot answer that question unless it is linked with his portfolio. Perhaps the member could rephrase the question.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I could say it this way; and I thought I did. Has the Minister received any reports of which parties support the view generally enunciated by Mr Alexander, and which parties are out there supporting the rope heads?
Hon PHIL GOFF: I do not think it is appropriate to use derogatory terms about any member in this House. I do not intend to comment on that. Although I cannot speak for other parties, and the House is aware of that, I can say that the Labour Party takes a very strong approach to the elimination and reduction of drug abuse, and alcohol abuse. We are consistent across the board on that. As that member knows, alcohol abuse can be very harmful as well.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you going to let the Minister get away with that?
Mr SPEAKER: No, I am not. I ask the Minister to withdraw that last comment.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: He should wash his mouth out.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am ruling now, no one else. The last comment the Minister made I thought could be taken in two ways, and I want him to withdraw any suggestion there was a personal reflection on any member of the House.
Hon PHIL GOFF: If requested, I withdraw, but I can assure you there was no personal reflection in that answer. Every member in this House knows that alcohol abuse can be harmful.
Mr SPEAKER: The Minister will now stand and withdraw, and say nothing else.
Hon PHIL GOFF: I withdraw. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In your initial comment you asked me whether I intended any derogatory comment in my answer, and as you asked me that question, I answered it.
Mr SPEAKER: Yes, and I was probably wrong in asking it.
Rod Donald: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think in the spirit of the occasion you should ask Mr Winston Peters to withdraw, if his comment was intended to be derogatory. His question was clearly framed in such a manner.
Mr SPEAKER: If the member was referring to any member of this House in a derogatory manner, I ask him to withdraw that comment.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I asked the Minister as to which parties are out there supporting rope heads, which clearly suggests that they are not in this Parliament.
Mr SPEAKER: That is perfectly OK. If it is not in this Parliament, then that it is.
Hon Richard Prebble: Is the Minister willing to confirm that the real reason why the Labour Government is not proposing a decriminalisation of marijuana is that under his Government the police have stopped arresting people for mere possession, and if he is not willing to make such a statement to the House, is it a fact that if he did confirm there has been a de facto decriminalisation of marijuana, which is something we all know, then that would expose United Future's claim-that it is supporting the Labour Government to stop the decriminalisation of marijuana-as a complete sham?
Hon PHIL GOFF: The reason why this party in Government is opposing the decriminalisation of marijuana is severalfold. Firstly, we have had health reports that show that marijuana can be dangerous in particular circumstances. That is well documented. Secondly, we have entered into an electoral commitment not to decriminalise marijuana. Thirdly, in relation to whether the police make arrests for possession, that is an operational matter. As that member told the House just a couple of weeks ago, Ministers cannot have anything to do with operational matters relating to the police.
Nandor Tanczos: I seek leave to table an example of a consistent, integrated, and evidence-based framework for the regulation of all drugs.
Leave granted.
Subscribe to email newsletters
