Seymour DavidInstruction to the Health CommitteeHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): I move That the Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 14 March 2024 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day which on which there has been a sitting of the House on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 193 195 and 196.I would like to briefly comment on the intended timing of this return period. I'm aware as I'm sure you are Mr Speaker that the scope of such a debate is extremely limited. It cannot traverse the content of this bill nor any other possible policy initiatives. It is simply a debate about the reporting date from the select committee. In this particular instance I'm asking for the House to instruct the select committee to report back in four weeks' time. The reason for that is to balance two competing objectives. One is that we hope that if the Government can put in place its regulations if Medsafe can process approvals or provisional approvals for particular products then all that stands in the way of the pseudoephedrine-based medication being available this winter will be the Parliament passing this law. A six-month select committee period as is normal would of course mean that we missed the winter for the use of pseudoephedrine-based products so that is the public interest in having a shortened select committee process.However of course that also means that there will be less time for the public to submit and less time for the Health Committee to consider any submissions that they receive. Now I'm very grateful in advance for their work on this but I think it's also important to be realistic. This piece of legislation is about two pages in its substance. It basically says that we are moving the word pseudoephedrine" from the section of class B drugs to the section of class C drugs. I mean that's all we're doing and I think some people might argue that a month to debate whether or not it's worthwhile to move a word from one page of a piece of law to another is perfectly adequate.On the other hand I think it's important that people have the opportunity to come forward because the purpose of a select committee hearing in my humble opinion is to inform the Parliament with information that parliamentarians might not have already had despite the considerable consultation that's already been done by the Ministry of Health. I've spoken to the Pharmacy Guild; a number of pharmaceutical companies; there's been consultation with the police—there's been a considerable consultation over the past several months already but you just don't know what might come to Parliament that didn't come through the process of a Minister like me making the policy and getting the legislation drafted. So we are striking a balance between the best of all worlds.It's a very simple bill. The implications of it are not particularly wide. I remind you that we've had this law in the past; as recently as 2011 what we're proposing was the law. It is the law in the four other Five Eyes countries and many others around the world. So the complexity is not great. I think a month is a good length of time to give people the opportunity to come along and say "Hey we haven't thought about this thing." It could be very valuable. On the other hand the simplicity of the bill does not justify a longer period; or the complexity of the bill such as it is does not justify a longer period.We hope that if the pharmaceutical companies get their orders in and get their applications to Medsafe done in time then New Zealanders may be able to enjoy the benefits of the legislation when they need it most this winter. There's a public benefit on the shortening and I think there's an adequate enough time for the consideration and on that basis I ask that the House endorse a one-month report-back time for this piece of legislation."