McClay Todd: Psychoactive Substances Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeMcClay Todd: Psychoactive Substances Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 27 June 2013. Volume:691;Page:11390. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon TODD McCLAY (Associate Minister of Health):I moveThat the Psychoactive Substances Bill be now read a second time . I want to thank the Health Committee for its thoughtful consideration of this bill and also the many people who made submissions on this important piece of legislation. I appreciate your broad support for and the helpful comments on the detail of the bill. Because of the overwhelming wish of New Zealanders for the Government to act on the sale and use of psychoactive substances so-called legal highs the committee has had a shorter period than usual to consider this bill. I greatly appreciate the cross-party support that has enabled Parliament to expeditiously deal with this issue. The shortened time frame was recognition of the significant problem that unregulated psychoactive substances have become and the need to find a solution.I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the considerable amount of work done by the Hon Peter Dunne in getting this bill to this stage. The Hon Peter Dunne has been a driving force behind this world-first legislation and we need to recognise the great work that has been put in place by Mr Dunne in this area.It is worth taking the time to remind ourselves what this bill is about. This bill is squarely about safety. It was prompted by concerns about untested substances being sold with no controls. The Government could have banned individual substances once we found out what they were but this process was reactive and extremely time-consuming. For each banned substance the Government had to identify what the substance was and identify possible harm from it before any action could be taken. Unfortunately the realities of living in this technological age meant that there were always new ones waiting with the potential to cause more harm. The number of substances available potentially thousands meant this was never going to be more than a temporary fix.This bill will fix this problem once and for all. No longer will the onus be on the Government to show a risk of harm; the onus will be on anyone wanting to produce a psychoactive product to show it poses no more than a low risk of harm. In order to do that there must be a way in which producers can demonstrate that their product meets the standard. But even if products meet that standard the Government will still be insisting on tight controls around their availability. For starters from day one of enactment neighbourhood dairies will no longer be entitled to stock any such product nor will sales to those under 18 years of age be permitted. These restrictions were always the Government’s intention but I appreciate the Health Committee’s wish to have that detailed in the primary register—legislation rather than regulations.Hon Trevor Mallard: It always pays to read the speech beforehand. It always pays to read it through and you can work out the big words that way.Hon TODD McCLAY: Yes Mr Mallard. Lots of things always pay but thanks for the advice. These and other restrictions including restricting where advertising can occur provide absolute certainty that the Government is serious about controlling these substances and preventing harm.Other changes made in the select committee include some clarification of the principle and purpose of this bill. The new version of the bill clarifies that the legislation is about protecting the health of individuals who use these substances. The select committee also inserted a principle that a product that meets a standard will be approved. If there really are products that meet these tests and pose only a low risk of harm then they will be approved. This bill was never meant to be a ban by stealth; it is about providing safer communities for our young people in particular.One issue on which there was a great deal of discussion was the offences provision in the bill. On balance the Government recommended keeping the offences for possession of an unapproved product and possession of any psychoactive substance by people under 18. I know that a lot of submitters wanted no personal possession offence and I respect that view. Submitters raised a concern in particular about young people having their future travel and employment options blighted through youthful foolishness. I agree that this would be an undesirable outcome. This bill is not about establishing a new class of criminal but I do not think recognising that there still needs to be some personal responsibility taken is a bad thing. However I can assure those who argued against a personal possession provision that we have very carefully made sure no one will receive a criminal conviction simply by possessing one of these substances. The worst thing that can happen is an infringement notice similar to a speeding ticket. I am assured by police that even this would be a last resort. The first response will be education and possibly referral to health or social services. These provisions will allow police to intervene and prevent harm to young people and harm from unapproved substances—the harm that I talked about earlier and the harm that this bill is intended to prevent.Another issue raised was the impact of these products on local communities. The select committee heard very strong submissions from local authorities on this issue in particular. In response the bill now contains provisions allowing local authorities to restrict outlet locations and density similar to the provisions in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act.The final issue that I want to talk about is that of animal testing. I know that this is an issue that many if not most people feel very strongly about. Let me say now that I respect those feelings and I share them. If there are suitable non-animal tests then they must and will be used. This bill is a response to the harm caused by untested products and the countervailing consideration must be human safety. We must be sure that the tests that these products are put through give us robust information so that the regulator can make sound decisions. Whether or not there is a suitable non-animal test is a matter for the experts.The Ministry of Health established an interim expert committee including experts on toxicology pharmacology and animal welfare. Mr Dunne asked that committee for advice on non-animal tests clearly articulating his strong preference for a regime that excluded animal testing. The committee’s advice was that some animal testing would be necessary at first to ensure that the risk of products was accurately assessed. The committee went on to advise that there were some alternative tests that could be used immediately and that it would continue to work to identify other alternatives.After receiving this advice I asked the Health Committee to consider an amendment to the bill that would put controls on animal testing and put a duty on the expert advisory committee to actively seek alternatives. I am very pleased to say that the committee members agreed unanimously to these amendments which are in clause 11A of the revised bill. The expert advisory committee will actively seek alternatives to animal tests and again I want to make it clear that there will be no animal testing where there is a suitable alternative. The overriding principle remains the need to make sure that the products sold in New Zealand pose no more than a low risk of harm. The importance of that principle is why this bill is before the House.This bill is also timely as I moved as a new Minister to refresh the National Drug Policy. Although there will be separate discussions and consultations held to discuss what else can be done in this area starting with a discussion forum tomorrow hosted by the New Zealand Drug Foundation the restrictions placed on psychoactive substancesthrough this bill will form an important component of New Zealand’s policy on drugs for the future.I am aware that drug policy is a particularly polarising area and I have no doubt that in the course of the National Drug Policy’s development a variety of interested parties will float a wide range of ideas many of which may not be acceptable to me or to this Government. However if thinking outside the box achieves even one promising proposal that will reduce the dependency and harm that come from drug use then I believe that it is worth the effort.Ensuring that we do not have high-risk novel psychoactive substances on shop shelves is the purpose of the bill and it will be achieved with this legislation. I commend this bill to the House.