Bridges Simon; Little AndrewHon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Actually I want to follow on from that with the Minister because he's been talking about particularly the requirement of who it will be that will be doing this testing and I also want to touch on and ask him a question or two on the what". Perhaps we'll wrap them up in this contribution. On the "who"—I've just heard what he said—I'd make the point to him that we're talking about as we've heard in the committee parents wanting an assurance that this is safe. And so surely it's more than simply a question I'm asking him of competency; isn't it also a question of good character? And is there a good-character requirement in this? Because we could envisage—and some may say "Well they're far-fetched"; I doubt they actually are—scenarios where people with a background in and with a connection to drug offending or those who may be engaged in those things could be involved here. Not only could that colour their advice but potentially there'd be other ramifications from that as well. And will there be in terms of those people who will get under new section 35DA in clause 10 the tick from the Director-General of Health training? Because we'd want to know that actually there's more than just a once over lightly. How will that competency be assessed? Because you know I come back to it: parents are wanting an assurance of safety here and surely you want to make sure that information that's going to them is of the best quality isn't coloured isn't too relaxed but is serious given we're not just dealing with class C and B drugs; we're dealing with class A drugs as well with serious harms.To wrap this up in one go here I'll also ask the Minister not just about the "who" but about the "what" which we get in new section 35DB in clause 10—the functions of the service provider. I'm particularly interested in not just the information and harm reduction advice which I've already touched on but also this question of the outcome of the testing and when the testers will return or dispose and what advice they will be giving around that and any sense he can give us of what that guidance will be from the director-general—if there's anything in this bill or if he envisages any further regulatory instrument to do that. And I say that because if I take a simple perspective on this—I'm not in any way an expert on MDMA; I've done jury trials in that area but they're a long time ago. I've done a lot of jury trials in the area of cannabis which was rather more common in the Bay of Plenty but the issue with cannabis of course is we know that the THC can be at a low level or a very high level and the buzz at the high level is much more dangerous. And so for example where impurities are found will there be a list? Where compounds are found will there be a list? Will there also be guidance on at what strengths in a sense the harm thresholds should be being applied here? I accept entirely these are not areas I have expertise in but I would be interested in asking the Minister given this bill is going through urgency without a parliamentary committee what the story there will be. And finally on all of that in terms of that returning and disposing—even when they're not disposed of and they are returned—if there aren't going to be limitations for certain strengths or buzzes if you like will it nevertheless be the case that there will be warnings for the ecstasy or other drugs in those? I really want to get some assurance from the Minister on those matters.Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you Madam Chair and I thank the member for his questions. I understand his first question related to who is doing the testing and how that can be determined or controlled and he raised the particular question about the good-character nature of the tester. I again refer the member to clause 10 of the bill and the proposed section 35DA. Again when the director-general comes to appoint drug- and substance-checking service providers the director-general has to be sure that this is an output or a person who can carry out the functions provided for in new section 35DB in clause 10. I think the member can be sure and the committee can be sure the director-general will want to know that this is someone who has the means the capability and the qualifications to carry out substance testing. And in fact if you look at proposed section 35DB(1)(b) one of the things that the drug-testing service has to do is to "ascertain the composition and likely identity of the drug". So they're going to have the means the equipment the chemicals—whatever—to carry out that function. So the director-general in appointing someone to that role has to be sure that they can do it. So this is not going to be any old mug off the street waltzing up their application to the director-general and saying "I'll do it" and thinking they're in for a good time. These are going to be competent qualified people who do the job as indeed the people who do it for KnowYourStuffNZ are. So I think the scheme of the bill gives the reassurance that this is going to provide a level of safety and therefore assurance to parents of young people who might be availing themselves of these sorts of services. The member raised questions about what the owner of the substance who surrenders it for testing will be told. Well again the scheme of the bill makes it clear: they will be given information and harm reduction advice. So they will be told regardless: "You might want to use this; it might be your choice; do you know what this might do?" Once it's been tested they will then be given advice on the composition and likely identity of it and again it's an opportunity for the drug checker to give advice on ingestion of that particular substance. And then there's a range of other things that the tester can do which also includes that the substance provided for testing if the person who's provided it doesn't want it any more is for the drug-testing service to dispose of. So the dangers that I think the member is raising quite legitimately are I think satisfactorily covered off in the full scheme of the bill as laid out particularly in clause 10 of it."