Curran Clare: Psychoactive Substances Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCurran Clare: Psychoactive Substances Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 09 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:11792. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South):Well the world has gone mad the day that I actually agree with John Banks on one thing that he said because I tell you what most of his logic is sheer claptrap. In that 10-minute speech helping young people which is the purpose of the Psychoactive Substances Bill got a mention once—just once. There has been an enormous amount of claptrap come from the backbenchers over there this afternoon accusing this side of the Chamber of porkies. Well there is an enormous porky that will be revealed in this Chamber from the former Minister who was responsible for this bill. It has been members on this side of the Chamber who have done the hard work in their communities to make this issue into the issue that has been pushed before the House—to get this bill before the House as soon as possible. It has been members on this side of the Chamber who have done the heavy lifting in the Health Committee on hearing those submissions and coming up with a good piece of legislation.It is a good piece of legislation except for just one piece of it and that is the piece around animal testing. The reason that that is not in the legislation is that the evidence could not be heard. Government members on that side of the Chamber refused to have it so the evidence could not be brought before the select committee.Let me just tell you that there was a very strange thing that occurred in the second reading of this bill during the speech by Peter Dunne who was the original sponsor of this. He told a rather large porky and delivered that porky during his second reading speech when he called into question the reputation of a highly regarded health specialist in Dunedin. I wish to put the record straight on that. In his speech in the second reading he talked about a red herring of the debate: the animal testing issue. He said that there was never any intention to embark on a programme of animal testing. He said: “Late last year an Official Information Act request was lodged with the Ministry of Health for a whole range of papers relating to this new regime. One of [those new] papers was a paper prepared by Dr Leo Schep of the National Poisons Centre in Dunedin.” Mr Dunne acknowledged that “Dr Schep has done a huge amount of work in this area but is at one end of the spectrum in terms of the debate. He is a purist. … He is an exceptional toxicologist”—which he certainly is. Dr Schep “produced a paper that was headed ‘Report to the New Zealand Government on Animal Testing’. It was his initiative.”That report was commissioned by the Ministry of Health from Mark Heffernan on 9 December 2011 who requested that Dr Schep write a report detailing the necessary toxicology tests for this bill. The report was titled Regulations Governing the Control of Novel Psychoactive Drugs—defining parameters associated with toxicity. Here is that report. It is a peer-reviewed report. It is not an “own initiative” report; it was requested by the Ministry of Health presumably one of a number of reports that contributed to the preparation of that bill. In that report it set out the law that requires pharmaceutical companies to prove that drugs are both safe and effective before they can be registered for human use. It set out the process that you go through in those current tests which include some animal testing. It did not advocate for it. It set out the process as was requested in this report commissioned by the Ministry of Health. Unfortunately Mr Dunne has defiled the name of Dr Schep who is one of our prominent toxicologists in this country and has done a huge amount of work on the effect of synthetic cannabinoids.Dr Schep is currently running a study in three hospital emergency departments recruiting patients who are seeking medical attention following recreational use of these drugs. He writes monthly reports to the Government and to Government agencies including the police and the New Zealand Defence Force on calls to the National Poisons Centre. I would like to show you a copy of one of those reports. This is a copy of the report from October 2010 to May 2013 which sets out the number of calls to the National Poisons Centre for synthetic cannabinoids. What it shows is that the number of calls has shot up. It has shot up absolutely. This report is by one of the men who has been doing the really important work behind the scenes and I want to read to you some of what this report contains because what Mr Dunne said in the House during his second reading speech last week was a slur on this prominent specialist and it really does need to be corrected. He said that increasing rates of calls to the National Poisons Centre have continued into May with a 50 percent increase from April. Of those calls 71 percent were associated with poison exposure 21 percent with users suffering withdrawal effects and 8 percent were poison inquiries. Such a substantial increase in calls may be explained in part by the increased media attention on synthetic cannabinoids some of which were centred on interviews from the National Poisons Centre. Nevertheless it suggests increased use of these products has resulted in increased incidence of adverse effects requiring medical attention. Discussions with emergency departments reinforce this observation.Then he went on to detail what some of those adverse effects are and how serious they are becoming. He said that the National Poisons Centre is concerned by the increased incidence of adverse effects following exposure to these analogues. Nevertheless it welcomes the Government’s initiative to bring forward the new legislation to July rather than August. I would like to ask the Minister in the chair Associate Minister of Health McClay during the course of this debate just what increased resources are going to be put into the health system into our mental health system into our emergency departments for the people who are responding to these adverse health effects. What extra resources are being put in to counter the effects once this legislation takes place and the effects that are occurring now in our health system?In my second reading speech in this House I outlined the concern that is coming from the health community on those increased effects that are occurring in our community at this very moment. I would like to know just what extra resources are going to be committed or are we turning a blind eye to this? Because along with legislation comes the responsibility for the impact of the issue in the community. We have got it right here. We have the National Poisons Centre showing just how many extra calls are coming in about this issue. We are having detailed information now coming to light about the impact on mental health on physical health on crime and on the effect on our young people in the community. The police are telling us that when these substances go off the shelves in our dairies they might go underground. What will happen to the people who are addicted to it and do not have a ready supply any more? What extra resources are going to be put in to counter the impact of this legislation?