Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Chair. There are some very important points to be said about this commencement clause clause 2 and it's not jumping up and down and screaming about how horrible the psychoactive substances are in our community because we all accept that. We all want the action to start now but the fact of the matter is that this legislation radically changes the nature of the Psychoactive Substances Act. Because of that we need to defer the commencement date. What we have is a highly regulatory piece of licensing legislation.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): OK. Let me read to you out of Speakers' Rulings—just stop the time. I'll refer you to Speakers' ruling 115/2: An amendment to a commencement date must provide certainty about when the Act is to come into force. An amendment that relies on an indeterminate event is not in order." OK? So if you're talking about the commencement date and you're making any suggestions about it it has to provide certainty and you have to be talking about the commencement date not anything else—OK? So we'll start the clock and we'll give you another chance.Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Thank you Madam Chair. In 51 seconds—Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order Madam Chair. I also just seek your clarification about the scope of the debate if an amendment has not been put on the Table. This is a technical process and both the Hon Stuart Nash and Mr Webb have referred to amendments they intend to make but as far as I can tell those have not yet been made. Would it not be in order for that amendment first to be tabled so that the rest of the committee can examine it?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): In fairness members have talked about suggestions. They can offer during the debate alternate commencement dates—that's a practice that I understand has been regularly used—as long as they are providing a certain date. So I think an earlier member tried to suggest that it never come into effect. That would be totally out of order but to suggest another time for the commencement of the bill would be entirely within the Standing Orders.Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Thank you Madam Chair. Perhaps my error was not making clear my suggestion and then speaking to it because I've got one suggestion and two reasons for it. My suggestion is that the commencement date be deferred for two years from the date of Royal assent. The reason for that is that it radically changes the nature of the legislation. What was a regulatory regime which was a licensing regime for people to apply to have substances approved becomes essentially a criminal framework. Now whilst there was a regulatory offence—a serious regulatory offence—under the old Act this would substantially change that and move it into an entirely different dimension. So that is the first reason why I suggest that the commencement date be deferred for two years from the date of the Royal assent.The second reason—and there's two aspects to this reason—is that a review is being undertaken of the operation of this legislation. Now the Ministry of Health is obliged under the principal Act to review—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): This is not actually—I mean I understand you're giving your reasons. You know it's a very very narrow debate and you still have to be talking about the clause itself and the commencement date and not straying into the wider implications of the bill and all the bits and pieces. It's difficult.Dr DUNCAN WEBB: No there's two reasons why the two years is an appropriate extension in respect of the review. One is because once the review is conducted it will be able to inform the ministry and the Minister on any amendment to the principal Act. So rather than leaping into this right now it may well be that within that two-year window the Minister having taken the advice from the ministry has sufficient time within that two-year window to make suitable amendments to the regulatory regime to the criminal regime or to the wider legislative framework that deals with illicit substances. So that is the first reason. The second reason is it gives us an opportunity to take a much more appropriate response to this scourge which isn't incarcerating people but is absolutely addressing—as the Drug Foundation suggests and the Ministry of Heath suggests—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No no no. Come back to the commencement date. I don't want to hear what the Drug Foundation is saying. Let's keep talking about the commencement date.Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The two-year commencement date gives the Government and the Minister time to adjust any regulatory or legislative settings. In respect of the new regulatory regime it allows people who might be legitimately seeking to work within the existing regime sufficient time to adjust their practices because it is fundamentally a licensing regime and that with Mr Simeon Brown's amendment will be thrown out of the window. People need time at least two years—I think two years may even be conservative is my suggestion but at least two years—to adjust their business practices to adjust any licensing applications they may have made so that they can properly put their affairs in order within that two-year period. It is almost retrospectively taking away from people who may have been looking at this. They may have indeed—certainly they were at the time of the original Act—invested time and energy. They need to unwind those frameworks within that two-year commencement period so that they can properly and not suddenly—not catastrophically—have to readjust their time. So in terms of that clause 2 "Commencement" having it come into force on the day it receives Royal assent would radically and surprisingly change the regime. It would upset any plans that the Minister may have in terms of the review it would deprive the Minister of the benefit of the advice and it would be entirely inappropriate. A two-year period is a much more appropriate period. Thank you Madam Chair."