Glue-sniffing bill “outrageous’

Press, 6 October 1984, Page 8

Glue-sniffing bill “outrageous’

By MICHAEL HANNAH in Wellington A bill making gluesniffing a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment or fines was attacked yesterday by the Minister of Police and Social Welfare, Mrs Hercus, as “absolutely outrageous.” The Government blocked the introduction of the Solvent Abuse Bill, sponsored by the Government member for Hauraki, Mr G. E. R. Lee. But the vote did not go beyond a voice vote, as neither Mr Lee nor other Opposition members sought a formal division of the House, as is normally expected to demonstrate support for bills. Mrs Hercus said the bill was “one of the most muddled, one of the most ill-thought out and stupid bills I have ever seen in terms of its timing and content.” She considered Mr Lee had made an “appalling

jump” from concern about the abuse of solvents to “panic and punishment,” and accused him of failing to address the causes of solvent abuse rather than the symptoms. Opposition members defended the bill as well timed. The member for Clutha, and Opposition spokesman on education, Mr R. M. Gray, denied that the Opposition was panicking “when we have young people out there dying because of this problem.” Moving the introduction of the bill, Mr Lee showed the House a plastic bag, from which glue and other solvents were sniffed, a tube of glue; and a spray can of solvent.

He said that glue-sniffing was no longer a fad. In preparing the bill, he had conferred with the police, social workers, community workers, and parents, including the parent of one young person who had died

from solvent abuse. He had visited the haunts of gluesniffers with the police youth aid section. Many of the young people involved had become “quite incorrigible and hardened in anti-social behaviour," he said.

The problem was vast and affected both urban and rural areas, Mr Lee said. His bill proposed two new offences be recognised, one that of “counselling or procuring solvent abuse,” the second that of “inhalation or abuse of any solvent.” Persons convicted of counselling or procuring another person to abuse solvents -- Mr Lee referred to them as “pushers” — would have been liable to up to six months imprisonment or a fine of up to $lOOO. Persons convicted of inhaling solvents were liable to a fine of up to $5OO. Other sections proposed the same treatment for solvent addicts as applied to

alcoholic addicts under the Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act; and inclusion as an offence under the Children and Young Persons Act the associating with “known criminals or drug addicts or persons who habitually inhale or abuse solvents.”

Mrs Hercus said she gave Mr Lee credit for “his good intentions,” before launching a blistering attack on the punitive nature of the bill. She noted the bil would make a child aged 14, who sniffed glue once, a criminal. “Where on God’s earth is the sensitivity and concern in that?” she said. “Punitive action is the name of this bill: making them criminals with records for the rest of their lives. That is absolutely outrageous,” Mrs Hercus said. The section creating new offences was “one of the most Draconian proposals” she had seen. The Government agencies which had

investigated the problem this year all said gluesniffing should not be criminalised.

“It is easy to invent punishment. It is much harder to resolve why this behaviour is taking place, and how to provide support,” she said.

Mrs Hercus said that, at one level, solvent abuse was experimentation, which irritated and angered adults. A heavy-handed response could only be counterproductive.

The abusers were victims of the saddest features of society, she said: they often came from deeply troubled backgrounds, affected by poverty, tension, and turmoil They performed poorly at school and developed low self-esteem.

“Out of alienation, boredom, and disillusionment Ssuccomb to pressure to ,” she said.