Last week, Parliament voted to reclassify methamphetamine, or 'P' to a class A drug and the Green Party was alone in opposing it. United Future's Peter Dunne howled that the Greens never met a drug we didn't like, but the fact is this move was little more than an election pay-off. This move won’t work, let me explain why.

The first thing to say is that the whole of the Green Party and myself are extremely concerned about the increasing use of methamphetamines, and in particular the increased used of crystal methamphetamine, known as P or pure. I have been on record, speaking out on this issue many, many times. I have probably spoken out on this issue before many members of this House had even heard of P.

The Green Party is totally opposed to the use of P, and is very interested in looking constructively at measures that we can take to reduce its use and abuse. There is a P epidemic that is going on in this country, which is a serious problem, with increased levels of violence and high levels of dependence because of it.

But I have to say that reclassifying methamphetamines to a class A drug will do absolutely nothing at all to address this situation.

The main effect of the reclassification is to increase maximum sentences, from 3 months to 6 months for use and possession, and from a maximum of 7 years to life for manufacture and supply. People think that this will provide a great deterrent for people who would otherwise be manufacturing methamphetamine, but this is not true.

If you compare the sentencing patterns for class A drugs over the last 20 years with the sentences for class B drugs, essentially they are the same. One year there may be a 2 month or a 1 month’s difference on the average sentence, but by and large, the sentencing for class A and class B manufacturing or supply is essentially the same. So the argument that this will suddenly create that great deterrent is just a total fallacy.

It is the likelihood of being caught that is the greatest deterrent, and this reclassification will do nothing to increase the likelihood that people will be caught for manufacturing or supplying methamphetamine

The argument is being used that these changes will make P a higher priority for police. That is absolutely untrue. If the police wanted to make methamphetamine a priority, they could do that today. They could have done that yesterday if they chose to do that. When one remembers that over half of the drugs budget by police is spent on cannabis, which is a class C drug, one has to realise that rescheduling to a class A drug will do nothing to make it more of a police priority.

The real question this we have to ask is whether there is any evidence that this move will do anything to reduce the use of P, or methamphetamines, in this country. The reality is that it will not make a damn bit of difference. What is this reclassification really about? It is clearly, simply another election buy-off to keep Peter Dunne's United Future Party in tow.

A solution lies with credible drug education and we have to put more money into it. We have to put more money into treatment. We should also target the precursors that are used to make methamphetamines because pseudo ephedrines and such compounds are widely available in this country.

What we need is a mix of demand reduction through education and treatment, and supply reduction by cutting down on those chemicals that are used to make methamphetamines. However, that would take a real commitment in terms of real resources. Not this feel-good stuff that makes Peter Dunne feel important and wonderful.

We must do something about the P problem, but a real solution must have real resources that would go into having a real effect on the ground.

Over the past few weeks thousands of New Zealanders have been donning cap and gown and marching to celebrate graduation. Unfortunately, more than ever before, they march into an uncertain future.

Jobs considered a right for the graduates of a previous generation are no longer there. The quarter-acre dream has been shattered by spiralling rents and property prices. And the very process of earning that qualification that was supposed to catapult them to a career and a slice of the pavlova paradise has left them with debt they will not see the end of for decades to come.

Rewind.

Because you are not a passive spectator to your own fate. University graduates, in some ways more than anyone, have the ability to shape the future.

So if you graduated this month, maximum respect. This is your future. If you are one of the many who watched as the black robes marched past in all pomp and splendour, don't forget that you also have the ability to influence events. It is in our nature.

One thing we urgently need to address is the mounting wall of student debt. A generation of graduates now owes $5.5 billion. How is this not everyone's problem? Graduates in this country each owe $13,660 on average. Someone out there owes $179,732! You'd need Helen Clark's salary just to keep up with the interest.

I guess for that person, and others with debts far smaller, to consider buying a house is a bit of a joke. Or try paying off a business start-up loan while servicing student debt. How could you start a family when 10 per cent of your income is snatched before you even see it?

I am particularly worried to see the amount of overdue loans has gone from $61 million at March 31 last year to $81 million this year. The number of borrowers this affects? 48,407. Nearly 50,000 of the people the government is looking to, to drive economic prosperity are being chased by the Inland Revenue Department as if they are tax dodgers.

That is not a future I want. The Labour Party felt the same way, once. Sadly, things have changed now they are the government.

In 1996, only one term before they were elected to government, their tertiary education policy said fees would be capped at $1000. A universal student allowance was promised. And for those already burdened with student loans, they would match significant lump sum payments dollar for dollar. So if you paid $1000, they'd chuck in an extra $1000 to help you pay off the debt faster.

I don't want to belittle the useful but limited things they have done on interest rates, freezing fees and the like. But the big vision is gone. The gains made for students under Labour have been minor.

As with a number of other issues of public importance the Green party is a lone voice in parliament challenging the status quo. We oppose the student loan scheme. We advocate reducing fees, we advocate a universal student allowance, and we advocate urgent measures to lift the burden of student loan debt on our graduates.

Above all else, we advocate a future for the graduates of this country.