King Annette: Psychoactive Substances Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeKing Annette: Psychoactive Substances Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 09 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:11795. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai):I would like to pick up on a number of points that have been made in this part of the debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill. But the first part is to continue on where Louisa Wall left off and also Clare Curran and that is around the possible increase for health demands particularly because of banning these substances for people who have become addicted to them and the fact that they may well need to have increased health services.I would draw members’ attention to the front of this bill to the commentary where the Labour members of the Health Committee put forward that we would identify this as an issue. In the report from the committee we said: “We acknowledge that with the banning of some substances currently available there could be increased demand on mental health and drug and alcohol services which health providers will need to make provision for.” Obviously we will be ensuring at a future date that we ask questions about what provision is made because it was acknowledged at the committee that this could well be the case. Therefore if there is increased demand you cannot ask overstretched services to provide within the resources they have got. So we have identified it as an issue and we would be looking to ensure that in fact there were some resources to follow what could be increased demand for mental health and alcohol and drug services.I was very disappointed with Shane Ardern’s contribution. He was full of bucolic noises I thought. He was one of those members who did not see any evil did not hear any evil and did not speak any evil. In fact at the select committee he did none of those things. He did not see he did not hear and he did not speak. So to come into the Chamber now and try to tell this Committee that it was a delaying tactic by the members of the committee who wanted to hear submissions is an outrage. He said: “Well what do you think they want to hear them for?”. Let me get the words he said. “What does it mean that there were 200 submissions?” he yelled out. What does it mean? Well let me tell the member what it means. Two hundred people wanted to put a submission in. They are called the public. Good the Minister in the chair Maurice Williamson always acknowledges that there is a public out there. But unfortunately the rural member for Taranaki or wherever he comes from does not recognise that there are more than cows out there.You see the public wanted to be heard on this part of the bill. To say that the fact that we might have wanted to hear submissions was a delaying tactic is a slap in the face to the public. Is not the select committee process about allowing the public to have a say—to have their voices heard? Is that not what the democratic process is about? So for the hapless member for Taranaki to say: “Well what does it mean when 200 people submit?” I say to him to listen to the public now and then because they sometimes get it right. It is our duty and obligation to hear the public at a select committee. We have one House in our Parliament. We do not have an Upper Chamber. We use the select committee to be able to decide what changes we are going to make. One of the ways we make changes is to listen to submissions.Can I just say also to Brendan Horan who has brought forward an amendment in Supplementary Order Paper 271 good on him for bringing forward an amendment. The amendment that he brought forward is to say that the Psychoactive Substances Expert Advisory Committee must provide the Minister with a written annual report of its operations. Well I went and spoke to the Minister and I gather he is inclined to support this amendment and obviously we are interested in it. We like transparency and openness about what is happening within advisory committees. What I would ask the member Brendan Horan if he takes a call is why he would have the advisory committee report to the Minister and why he would not have it report to the authority. It is the authority that appoints the members of the advisory committee after consultation with the Minister and it is the Director-General of Health who can report every year in an annual report to the select committee on what is happening to any advisory committee. So I am wondering why if the authority is the Director-General of Health the member would not have considered requiring the reporting to be directly to the authority which is established under this bill. So good on him for coming up with an amendment and I suspect that he will probably get his first win in this Chamber—[Bell rung] Mr Chairman—his first win in this Chamber—