Ardern Shane: Psychoactive Substances Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Shane: Psychoactive Substances Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 09 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:11788. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country):It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the Psychoactive Substances Bill particularly after the previous speaker Louisa Wall who I know is genuine in her desire to see this drug brought under control although I would suggest to her that sometimes those who are in Opposition tend to rewrite history in a way that may not be exactly as I myself remember it in the Health Committee. One of the things that I think the member might be careful to not allow herself to be drawn into in Opposition is trying to manage the process in the select committee to delay the passage of the bill which is entirely what was intended by the proposals brought forward when the chairman tried to rule out—Hon Members: That’s not true.SHANE ARDERN: I have listened to the puppy-dog campaign from the other side of the Chamber for the last three debates on this and I can see straight through it and you can see by their reaction that I am absolutely right in what I am saying. The only reason that they were trying to introduce these new submissions which were clearly outside of what was intended in this process was to delay the process through the House and delay the passage of this bill.Hon Trevor Mallard: What a lie. Tell the truth.SHANE ARDERN: Then to listen to them—the Hon Trevor Mallard talking about his newly found concern for puppy-dogs. My goodness! We have stooped to a new political low in this House when that starts to happen. The reality is—Hon Trevor Mallard: I’ve bred dogs for nearly 40 years.SHANE ARDERN: Read the bill Trevor—read the bill. What it says is that there will be an expert panel that will decide what testing is required and not required—Hon Trevor Mallard: I didn’t need anyone to read it to me unlike the member.SHANE ARDERN: If you have a look at that for a moment Mr Mallard you will find that one of that expert panel—conveniently left out by the previous speaker who highlighted all of the expertise that will be brought to that panel in regard to the medical background but she did not mention the expertise that is going to be brought to that expert panel in regard to animal welfare and that the panel will decide whether or not there is a need for animal testing. What I am understanding the suggestion to be from the other side of the Chamber is that if the drugs cannot be proven to be of minimum harm then they will rule out animal testing. They will rule that out by supporting a Supplementary Order Paper from the Green Party. To me that is beyond comprehension.Regarding the reference to puppy-dogs I understand that most of this testing is done on rats and mice and other animals like guinea pigs. But of course puppy-dogs are going to stir the emotions of everyone to achieve the goal that the Opposition wants to achieve which is to slow this process down—to slow the process down. What the member needs to go and have a look at is what the expert panel’s job is and what it intends to do in regard to how it decides what drugs may or may not be determined as being of minimum risk and how it is going to go about that. I would suggest to the members who have raised this white herring that they go and have a look at that. Go and have a read of that. Look at the science and have a look at how that process will take place.Further the suggestion that the chairman somehow or other controlled or manipulated the process so that some expert submitters could not be heard is about as far from the mark as it is possible to be. To suggest that the honourable Paul Hutchison would do such a thing is beyond comprehension and I think most people would accept what I am putting forward. That is not what happened. What was deliberately being set up was a delay of the process by allowing a range of submitters that had nothing to do with the core of this bill and that is exactly what the members were trying to achieve. I say to the new members that this is not a new process; this is a common theme amongst Opposition members of Parliament.Louisa Wall: How many submissions did we have that were ruled out of order?SHANE ARDERN: Well how many were there?Louisa Wall: Over 200 from—SHANE ARDERN: Right. What does that suggest to the member? What would that suggest to the member? That over 200 people were concerned about animal welfare not about young people’s welfare. That is what it would suggest to me. So go and have a look at what the expert panel would suggest and then come back and have a look at some of the other things that this bill will do. It will stop the sale of these products in places where children can get access to it. It will minimise the harm that is inflicted on society.