Hutchison Paul: Psychoactive Substances Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHutchison Paul: Psychoactive Substances Amendment Bill — First Reading Second Reading In Committee Third Reading[Sitting date: 06 May 2014. Volume:698;Page:17513. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): Mr Iain Lees-Galloway tends to be a little shrill about a very complex matter of regulating drugs effectively which the Labour Government certainly failed to do in 9 long years. No matter how much Mr Iain Lees-Galloway rants and raves this is a complex area and countries around the world are wrestling with the best and most effective ways of minimising harm from psychoactive substances.I must say that when the Health Committee heard submissions on the Psychoactive Substances Bill last year New Zealanders up and down the country came to the select committee saying how they were deeply concerned for the children of New Zealand and the adolescents who were using psychoactive substances because of the serious adverse effects—none more so than the Mayor of Timaru who came up to Wellington and said that it was the No. 1 problem in her community of Timaru and that the parents and the whole community were begging her to do something about it. After all the aim of the original legislation was to minimise harm from psychoactive substances and protect the public health. It was regarded as highly innovative legislation and a huge amount of thought had been put into it but as I said before this is a very complex issue that no Government that I know of anywhere in the world has managed to get on top of.I agree and accept that politically there is a very strong call for banning psychoactive substances. The reality is that under the circumstances where there is a danger that they will be driven underground—and it is a very real danger—there is a concern that we must have the infrastructure and services available to look after those people who have withdrawal problems. And it is important to resource the police.There are several ironies relating to this legislation the Psychoactive Substances Amendment Bill. As JohnRoughan pointed out in theNew Zealand Herald it is somewhat extraordinary that one would ban cannabis and yet cannabinoids synthetic cannabis which is often many times more potent than the natural weed was legal. So it is entirely appropriate that we are indeed addressing this issue.One of the major tenets of this bill was that manufacturers are required to demonstrate minimal risk to humans who use so-called party pills or legal highs and this legislation is about risk management. However to demonstrate minimal risk in 2014 does require the possibility of some animal testing. We had huge debate in this House regarding that. The Psychoactive Substances Expert Advisory Committee was absolutely clear that unfortunately despite the rhetoric of the Greens and the anti-vivisectionists in 2014 there are not substantive tests available that can demonstrate minimal risk. Professor Robson from the expert advisory committee ProfessorGluckman and the Ministry of Health all acknowledge that to be the case and that it may be several years before we have alternatives that are effective to demonstrate minimal harm. However in the meantime we are doing the appropriate thing in taking psychoactive substances off the shelves.I do want to mention that there are some wider safety scientific and economic issues at stake around the passing of this bill because there is no doubt in my mind that if New Zealand is to say that science is at the centre of Government and we are going to continue to have high standards around the medicines and drugs we use it is fundamental to insist that these medications undergo rigorous testing according to best-practice scientific methods which today as I have said does indeed require—to the best of our knowledge—animal testing. We hope that this can be replaced and thelegislation was very clear that it should be minimised if indeed it was needed. We hope that technology will advance rapidly and allow it not to be necessary.But the erosion of these principles in the pharmaceutical and biological engineering field can lead to the erosion of standards and opportunities in the health sector in the agricultural sector in the biosecurity sector and in the innovative sector. I remember well the debates around the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation some years ago where the Greens wanted to exercise the precautionary principle to the zenith degree with the result that New Zealand’s capability and capacity in the area of biotechnology have been reduced. This does mean a reduced capability in the agricultural and biosecurity area. It is also ironic that the Greens talk about this precautionary principle for offshore drilling and indeed as I say in the biological engineering area but when it comes to party pills they are not so worried about the standards that are used. These pills or substances are used on adolescents’ developing brains when they are at their most sensitive.There is no doubt that this amendment bill is a practical response to the fact that ordinary New Zealanders up and down the country do not want psychoactive substances to be available legally. I feel very strongly that the House is supporting this bill and it is an irony that the Greens are abstaining.