Nash Stuart: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Nash Stuart: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20210] 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I would just like to make a comment. I have mentioned this before in the Chamber but I would like to reiterate it. I was speaking to an old member of Parliament—sorry a member of Parliament who had been here a while ago—who is older than Mr Chair Robertson of course and we were talking about the Committee stage. I bemoaned the fact that during the Committee stage what was happening was that Labour members were putting a lot of questions out there. I felt that the vast majority were relevant to the Minister in the chair and the Minister in the chair at the time was just sitting there reading and not even taking any notice whatsoever. 
But do I note that whenever Associate Minister of Health the Hon Peter Dunne—and I would like to commend him on this—is sitting in the chair whether it is on a tax bill or this sort of health bill if Labour members ask questions or make comments he always stands up and addresses the questions or comments. Some of them are rather banal I must admit but he always addresses them and I think that is in the true spirit of the parliamentary process. It just shows that the Minister has been around for a while. He respects the House even if sometimes we are in major disagreement with regard to some of the policies that he advocates. I would like to thank the Minister for doing that because I think it is in the true spirit of what the Committee stage is about—absolutely. 
As everyone said in rather unparliamentary terms—I am surprised Mr Chair being the stickler that you are for process that you have not pulled up members for the use of the word “cock-up”— 
Hon Member 
: Be careful! 
STUART NASH 
: The Minister used it and as the Minister said the clause seeks to remove the exclusion that a hazardous substance cannot also be a restricted substance. When we get to bills a lot of these issues are about semantics and when we go through the Committee stage on a lot of bills I suspect that those who are listening or the person who is listening must sit there and go: “Goodness me! This really is semantics.” But when it comes to law it really has to be quite tight and these sorts of bills and these sorts of amendments are required just to make sure the law gets it right because it has to provide direction first to the public second to the judiciary and third to the industry or business that is dealing in this sort of carry-on. 
As the Minister mentioned—and it has been very topical recently; I think Iain Lees-Galloway has talked about this at great length as has Kris Faafoi—we are faced with numerous toxic substances these days and people will do whatever they can to alter their mind— 
Kris Faafoi 
: Ecotoxic. 
STUART NASH 
: That is a good word—“ecotoxic”. I think it is important that we do send a very clear message to the people of New Zealand to the youth of New Zealand but also to the industry that Parliament will not tolerate this sort of behaviour. We need to send the message that it will not tolerate this sort of industry and I suppose this bill is a step in closing a lot of it down. Am I right I ask Mr Lees-Galloway? This bill is just a first step. There is much more work to be done; of that there is no doubt. It is a shame that it was not done a little earlier and it is a shame that the Minister did not act a little faster. That is a conversation for another day so maybe it will be in a third reading speech—or it might have already been had. 
We are supporting this bill but I would like to thank the Minister very much for getting up and clarifying a lot of this stuff. We support this bill. As I said it does not go far enough but it is a start. Thank you very much. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to clause 13 be agreed to.