Banks John: Psychoactive Substances Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBanks John: Psychoactive Substances Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 27 June 2013. Volume:691;Page:11401. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT):I rise to oppose the Psychoactive Substances Bill and I will oppose it at every turn until it ends up on the statute book with the numbers except for me in this House. This bill is well intentioned—there is no doubt about that—and is aimed at ensuring that psychoactive substances sold in New Zealand are as safe as possible. I want to pay my respects to the new Associate Minister of Health Todd McClay for his noble intentions with this bill which he inherited from the ex - Associate Minister. However I simply cannot support it.I find it totally unacceptable that this bill fails to rule out—to rule out—testing these recreational drugs on innocent animals. Protecting animals is ingrained in my soul. I think most New Zealanders will be outraged at the idea that chemicals people use just for fun can be and likely will be tested on harmless animals. Animals will be put to extreme pain animals will suffer and animals will die. That is why the countries in the European Union have banned the testing of cosmetics on animals—in particular rabbits.We must remember that psychoactive drug substances are not a necessity and we should say to people today from this Parliament that they are high-risk substances under any circumstances—they are not a necessity for the well-being of the human person. Recreational drugs are not something one needs to consume. They are not something people should consume. We should say from this Parliament today that young people any person should not be consuming these substances. That is the first message. They are not lifesaving medicines or something that will relieve suffering. People do not need to take these chemicals.Their prolific use will cause widespread animal suffering. There is simply no justification or reason for unnecessary drugs like these to be tested on animals and I for one find it deeply offensive that any Government would sanction this. Animals will be in pain and animals will die in the name of people wanting to take mind-altering drugs on the weekend. That is simply wrong and unacceptable. Animals must not experience suffering for economic or entertainment reasons or for lining the pockets of the drug importers and the drug dealers who will be selling them at the dairies to addle the minds of our kids.I know the Health Committee inserted a new clause in the bill to state that animal testing should be used only when necessary. But animal testing will never be necessary for recreational drug purposes. It will never be necessary to cruelly treat a beagle puppy in the name of a recreational party drug. Evidence shows animal testing is not necessary at all to prove the safety of these mind-altering chemicals. Dr Ian Shaw of the University of Canterbury says that non-animal testing can adequately establish whethera substance has an unacceptable risk of acute toxicity. Cell culture ex vivo and structure-activity relationship studies can all be used to establish the risk. Non-animal testing regimes can test all of these substances to establish the risk.I cannot for the life of me see the mischief in allowing the good people of Save Animals from Exploitation and the SPCA to come to the select committee to make a submission. What would have been the mischief of saying to these good Samaritans in our community who protect harmless animals from cruelty: “Come to the select committee of the Parliament and have your say.”? I know why they were not allowed. It was because the ex - Associate Minister of Health would have been embarrassed by what they would have had to say about our obligations to treat animals with respect and dignity.This afternoon in the House the ex - Associate Minister said: “It’s not our intention to test these substances on animals.” He said it four times: “It’s not our intention.” I interjected from that seat there: “Tell me ex-Minister will animals be used for testing?”. He said: “It’s not our intention.” The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I asked the ex-Minister four times. The naive ex-Minister said “It’s not our intention. It’s never been our intention.” but that is not what the bill says. The bill does not rule out the testing on beagle puppies of these mind-altering dangerous chemicals. It does not rule it out.There would be no mischief whatsoever in taking Mojo Mathers’ Supplementary Order Paper 260 and embracing it and then we would have world-class leading legislation on mind-altering substances that will be sold by the drug dealers and the dairies on the corner mainly to our young people. We would have that there. What would have been the mischief? What would have been the mischief of taking Mojo Mathers’ Supplementary Order Paper? It was a pigheaded attitude by the ex-Minister that stopped it and nothing more. I know my friends in the National Party on the select committee would not have worried if that had been the directive from the ex-Minister. But the ex-Minister could not see it in his heart and in his soul to protect harmless animals from being treated with these dangerous drugs.If you cannot prove your fun drug of choice is safe without putting animals in abject misery you cannot sell the drug. If you need to pay more for more expensive non-animal testing in China where it will be tested I say tough luck again. That is the price you pay and that is the price you have to pay for the profiteers of these dangerous chemicals who sell them to our kids. The reality is the bill could well result in drugs being tested on animals in places like China and India where animal welfare is shamefully non-existent. Most of these substances will be tested in China and in India where there are no animal welfare rights no animal welfare care and no responsibility.The statement in the bill that overseas testing must be carried out in accordance with the New Zealand Animal Welfare Act is nonsense because there is no way for us in New Zealand to assess what goes on in the torture chambers of animal testing laboratories in South-east Asia. There is no way we can test there. There is no way we can put our high standards of animal welfare on regimes there. Despite assurances from the ex-Minister this bill fails to rule out the use of extremely cruel LD50 tests. We will wait and see where that goes and we will talk about it later.But even worse these animal testing places test their drugs on man’s best friends as I said—dogs or more important on beagle puppies bred for purpose. Some have said that Mr Kerridge the eminent Mr Kerridge from the SPCA supports this. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr Kerridge has told me: “It is a matter of record that I am opposed to any animal testing for the approval of psychoactive products and my presence on this committee does not alter or condone it at all.”Finally I want to thank Mojo Mathers for her work on this bill and her Supplementary Order Paper which I will be supporting. I am sure other parties will support it as well. But I say to her and the Green Party that if your amendment fails at the Committee stage to get the numbers you should vote against this bill anyway. The Green Party has an excellent set of credentials around animal rights and animal welfare and I applaud it today for those.We are sacrificing animals at the altar of recreational drug-use. It is a disgrace to this country. It should not happen. It does not need to happen. We could stop it. It could be world-leading education. I repeat these words: as the most powerful creatures on this earth humans have a responsibility to protect all animals from senseless worthless and shameless cruelty at all times and in all places and I am starting with this legislation here today in this Parliament.