McClay Todd: Psychoactive Substances Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMcClay Todd: Psychoactive Substances Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 09 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:11781. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TODD McCLAY (Associate Minister of Health):I thought I would take a brief call at this stage really only to recognise the work of the Health Committee. Before I became the Minister with responsibility for this bill the Psychoactive Substances Bill I had the opportunity the honour to sit through one small part of a committee meeting when this issue was being discussed. I can tell you that once I became a Minister I was not hopeful that we would reach resolution earlier because you see it was evident to me and it was obvious at all stages in the committee that there was a lot of passion a lot of determination and a lot of thought being put into different positions. But what also was apparent was that all members were looking to do what is best for New Zealanders.So I want to recognise that all parties in the House are putting aside some of the issues that are more challenging for us and we will be able to talk about those a little bit more later in the stage. Certainly we recognise that when it comes to the safety of New Zealanders and when it comes to having good rules around these products we all know from our interactions with our constituents with parents and through reading newspapers and reports from doctors and nurses that these products are causing significant harm all over this country and we have been able to come together and I think do what is right.Indeed the legislation’s passing in this House will be a world first. I do know there are many countries of the world that have been grappling with the challenges of psychoactive substances and so-called legal highs for as long as if not longer than we have been grappling with them in New Zealand. Some have tried to ban them outright which we looked at doing a year or two ago. We know that those chemists sitting in laboratories around the world move faster than we are able to make the changes to take these harmful products out of circulation. Much of the world now is looking at us in New Zealand and in this House for leadership and I would guarantee that all over the world—certainly it is the case in New Zealand—there are mums and dads hoping that we will do our job properly and we will get this into law as quickly as we can so that no more New Zealanders are harmed by these products.Again I want to recognise the work that has been done. Indeed the Minister who was last responsible for the portfolio Peter Dunne did a great amount of work and gave this priority. I come at the very late stages of this legislation to finish the job that was started by Mr Dunne whom I have great respect for and who has made it easier for this House to come to this position.I too want to recognise the chairman of the committee who had a very difficult job because there was great passion not only amongst members of Parliament but also amongst submitters and we are all receiving emails at the moment. I am yet to have an email from anybody who I view as being credible that says we should do nothing at all so what we are now debating is the finer points of how we make this fair and reasonable and give certainty to New Zealanders and greater protection to young New Zealanders. So I would like to recognise Paul Hutchison as the chair and also thank him for this work.I have a number of Supplementary Order Papers that we are bringing forward and I do accept that they are later in the stage than the Committee might otherwise want. In part that is because I am a Minister who has taken responsibility only a short time ago. The Hon Annette King mentioned that I tried to broker a position that was acceptable to the Committee around the testing regime. Indeed I think I was in only my second day as a Minister at the time that I was faced with that decision. So I have had to rely upon the advice of officials but I have also taken time over the last month to go around the country and talk to doctors and nurses our police force experts and individuals about their concerns. Some of the changes that I am bringing in by way of the amendments in Supplementary Order Paper 268 are based upon my learnings over this last month and are also based upon suggestions that have been brought to me from experts in the field about how we need to make sure that the rules that this Parliament is about to adopt are going to have the effect that we want.Finally the issue of animal testing is one that there is a lot of passion about. As a member of Parliament and certainly as a Minister I do not want any animal to have these products tested on it where that is not absolutely necessary. But as an Associate Minister of Health with responsibility I must accept the scientific advice that has been brought to me and it is that a degree of testing will be necessary to ensure that these products are safe and acceptable and will not harm people. But that is not enough for me and I thank the committee for its work on agreeing to a compromise that says that where there is a test that gives the same certainty and does not require the use of animals then that test must be used; the test that includes the use of animals cannot be used. To those who are saying that it is possible to bring these products to market without testing them on animals at all I point out that the amendment put forward and accepted by the committee means that no tests on animals can be used. In that case actually I think we are very close to what many members of this Committee want.The advice that I have received tells me that there will be some degree of testing needed and I believe that I need to accept that advice rather than overrule it. We have an expert committee—not members of this Parliament—that is going to look at exactly what tests should be in place what tests are acceptable which ones are not and which will give certainty. But the select committee’s decision—and the message that this Parliament will be sending should the select committee’s position that was adopted stand as part of the bill when it becomes an Act—says that where there is a test that does not require the use of animals then it must be used; a test on animals cannot be used.I hope that the advice that I have received is not correct. I hope that those who have come to the select committee and who have been emailing us to say that it is possible to bring these products to market and ensure their safety so that people will not be harmed without the use of a single test upon an animal are correct because if they are there will be no tests upon animals. But if they are not correct as an Associate Minister of Health it is my responsibility to ensure that New Zealanders of all ages will not be harmed by any product that makes it to the market. Therefore I believe that the compromise that was reached in the select committee is one that is as far as we can go at this time.What we are also doing in the Supplementary Order Paper is saying to the experts and the committees—these experts whom we need to put trust in—that they need to keep assessing these tests and their validity and acceptability on a frequent basis and at least annually. There is another Supplementary Order Paper from a member of the House who I think has brought something to this legislation that says that a report from that committee must be brought back to the Minister at least once a year so that the Minister can be assured of the work that has been done and so that the Minister can be assured that the committee is taking its responsibilities seriously and that where greater changes are needed the Minister can consider that with his colleagues and the rest of the House.I will leave it there. We will have a chance to talk about this at greater length as we go on. To finish where I started I thank all members of the Committee of the whole House who will put aside some of the feelings they have when it comes to the final vote to do what is right for New Zealanders. They will make sure that New Zealanders have certainty that mums and dads do not need to worry as much and that every New Zealander—particularly every younger New Zealander—is protected from the considerable harm that so many of these products are causing.