Science wins out over hype
It was shocking to hear Sir Peter Gluckman say a baby could crawl on the carpet in a home where methamphetamine had been consumed without coming to harm. Serious and sober as the prime minister’s chief science adviser is, he chose this particularly arresting image to underline the finding that there is no evidence to show exposure to third-hand methamphetamine in your home is a health risk. It’s not a new message but it is plainly stated in his report this week.
The shock is amplified when you think how many children have been removed from safe, secure homes on the back of misplaced testing and clean-ups. Some of this occurred at the hands of the country’s largest landlord, whose role is to act as a backstop for vulnerable people. Under the National Government Housing NZ evicted scores of people, and withdrew 900 houses from its rental pool.
Wrenching away the stability and security a home offers, without proper cause, is a cruel blow. There are also those who had costs awarded against them in Tenancy Tribunal cases. The hefty penalties will leave many in debt for years, and some will never be able to pay them back.
More and more cases can be expected to come to light, where a runaway methamphetamine testing and clean-up industry has profited at the expense of tens of thousands of New Zealanders. We can all feel a justifiable sense of outrage.
This whole sorry saga could have been cut off at the pass at many junctures. Guidelines for the remediation of properties used as a laboratory for the manufacture of methamphetamine were released by the Ministry of Health in 2010. They contain nothing whatsoever about the dangers of thirdhand exposure in dwellings where methamphetamine has been smoked.
The burgeoning clean-up industry seized on the guidelines to promote their services and raised the spectre of widespread ‘‘contamination’’. The ministry was silent on this misappropriation of the guidelines.
As reports surfaced that Housing NZ tenants were being evicted after the presence of methamphetamine was detected in their rental homes, the agency stood its ground. Any illegal behaviour would not be tolerated.
By early 2016 the dubious practices of testing companies and astronomical figures for remediation were being called into question. Horror stories abounded. In the face of public concern, Building Minister Nick Smith accepted the need for tighter rules for testing businesses. Standards NZ embarked on a review of existing guidelines. With a committee stacked with industry representatives and a limited remit, it was no surprise the resulting standards were barely different from the existing ones.
The decision by Consumer Affairs Minister Kris Faafoi to review the process is welcome. But how did they get the science so wrong? A number of independent scientists made efforts to debunk the myths perpetuated by the industry. When scientists pushed back with facts, they were portrayed merely as a competing voice.
The ministers at the time failed to give due weight to the science, and their decisions seemed to be clouded by the interests of industry.
The announcement this week that Housing NZ is applying the findings of the Gluckman report and making vacant properties available for rent is a relief for many families. Leaving the door open to compensate those unfairly impacted by evictions is the right thing to do. The long-overdue move to regulate the industry will stem the most exploitative behaviour.
Things could have been very different if scientific rigour free from the vested interests of commercial operations had been injected much sooner. How much distress could have been avoided? And countless millions saved? From this point forward it’s vital that evidence guides the way we address complex drug-policy issues.