Lees-Galloway Iain: Psychoactive Substances Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLees-Galloway Iain: Psychoactive Substances Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 11 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:12000. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North):This is a great day. Our communities up and down New Zealand will be celebrating because this is the day that we legislate to get drugs out of dairies and I have to say that it has been a long time coming. I am appalled by that Government over there which has prioritised creating more opportunities to gamble and increasing the harm related to gambling ahead of this legislation the Psychoactive Substances Bill which is designed to reduce drug-related harm. That is a shocking indictment on that Government’s priorities and it saddens me. It saddens me that this excellent piece of legislation which communities have been waiting for which people working in the drug and alcohol treatment sector have been waiting for and which indeed the people working in this industry who want to see a regulated smart cowboy-free industry have been waiting forfor so very long. And once again—this has been the theme of this legislation and the way that this Government has managed this legislation—we are rushing it.We are rushing one of the most worthwhile pieces of legislation that have appeared in the world of drug regulation in a very long time. This Government places such a lowpriority on reducing drug-related harm that it is rushing it in the last minute in the last hour before we go on a 2-week adjournment. It is an outrage. It is an outrage that the Government puts such a low priority on keeping our children safe that it is rushing this legislation. Every moment of this process has been rushed. The Government left it for 2 long years after the Law Commission presented its recommendations. The Government brought this legislation to the House in February and it sat on the Table for month after month after month sitting way down on the Order Paper because there were other things that were more important to this Government than reducing the harm related to drugs. Then the Government made us rush the select committee process. We could not hear all the submitters and we did not have time to get everything right. Then the Associate Minister of Health Todd McClay presents amendments handwritten at the last minute of the Committee stage.And then we get to today. We are selling legislation to Skycity. Binding future Parliaments to not be able to address gambling-related harm is an issue of greater priority to the National Government than reducing drug-related harm. That is an outrage.Melissa Lee: Calm down.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: That Government should hang its head in shame. Melissa Lee wants me to drop my voice. I will not drop my voice. I am angry at you Melissa Lee. I am angry at that Government because that Government does not have the interests of our communities at heart. That is why I am shouting Melissa Lee because this could have been great legislation. This could have been a marvellous step forward for drug regulation in New Zealand. This could have been the opportunity to not only get the drugs out of our dairies but also create for the first time a legal regulated market designed to reduce the harm associated with drugs. It will do that but the attitude this Government has taken is just appalling. It has dithered it has wasted time and here we are rushing this through right after that Government has voted to increase harm to our communities by allowing more gambling and selling off legislation to a corporation—outrageous.I do support this legislation. I think it is a good bill. It has been a very long time coming. I am pleased that members around the House have seen through some of the distractions and the things that have divided us to eventually get to a piece of legislation that we can all support. Although this does do the job of getting the drugs out of dairies there are a few things that could have been done better. One of those is to deal with the issue of possession. This is about creating a regulated market and ensuring that the manufacturers and sellers of high-risk substances get everything that they deserve and that those who continue to flout the law get everything that they deserve. That is where we should be focusing our attention not on the young people who find themselves in possession of these substances. It does nothing to advance the cause of this legislation to make the possession of an unapproved substance an offence and it does nothing to fine those people. In fact it will be an absolutely unenforceable component of this legislation. So I hope that in the future we will see fit to decriminalise the possession of these substances.The other thing I am concerned about is the new transition period that the Minister dumped on the Table at the very last minute. The Minister who was not the originator of the bill the Minister who took no part in the select committee process and the Minister who is ajohnny-come-lately to this legislation and dumped at the very last minute a change to the transition period. It is a transition period that was deliberately designed to avoid a black market. I have noticed that the National Party has been throwing around today the idea that a black market might be created. The only thing that will create a black market is prohibition. My fear is that because we did not have time to properlyconsider all the consequences and unintended consequences of the Minister’s amendment what we may discover is that by reducing that transition period down to 3 months a black market is precisely what the result will be. I am hoping that is not the case. I am hoping that the Minister is right and that the manufacturers of substances that are up for approval will be able to prove within that 3-month period that they have made some steps towards initiating clinical trials and that the Minister will then see fit to allow those substances to stay on the shelf because what is really important is that the low-risk substances do stay in the regulated legal market. The last thing we want to do is create a black market by having effective prohibition being the result of this legislation.One of the aspects of this Psychoactive Substances Bill is a review after a maximum of 5 years. That is a good idea given that this is innovative and world-leading legislation. We need to have a review after 5 years to see whether we have got it right. There are a couple of things that I think are absolutely necessary in that review if not before. The first is to consider the possibility of applying an excise tax to these substances. It is what we do with tobacco. It is what we do with alcohol. It is a good way of one raising revenue to fund the addiction services that may be needed to deal with the problems relating to these and other substances and two using price as a demand-limiting control. We failed to do that with the alcohol legislation. We do it very well with tobacco. I think it should be applied to these substances as well. But I appreciate that we need to have a look at the pricing points and we need to look at what the appropriate way of using an excise tax is.Finally what I want to see is what the Law Commission actually originally envisaged and that is a comprehensive review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. It is outdated. It is outmoded. It may have been appropriate in 1975 but it is not appropriate in 2013. In fact the Misuse of Drugs Act is doing more harm than good in the 21st century. All we have done here is actually create an added layer. So now we will have some high-risk substances that are legal some high-risk substances that are illegal some low-risk substances that are legal and some low-risk substances that are illegal. If that sounds confusing to people it is because it is. Our drug legislation is utterly confusing and what we really need is—better than this more than this—a true review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. But for now because this bill will get the—