O'Connor Damien: Psychoactive Substances Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Connor Damien: Psychoactive Substances Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11574. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman):I am pleased to take the opportunity to have a short call on this speech—Eugenie Sage: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My apologies to my colleague for interrupting. Could I confirm that this is a split call?Mr SPEAKER: Correct it is a split call.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: What a quagmire of contradictions in this bill the Psychoactive Substances Bill. For a party that believes in the power of the market and the wisdom of the market it is good to hear some reality from the members on the other side.I would firstly like to acknowledge the Hon Peter Dunne for pushing ahead. I am sure that the National Party was probably far more reluctant to push ahead with this bill and intervene on its sacred market. The market as the member acknowledges is both dangerous if not regulated and potentially lethal of course for too many people.Although I have some concern for dogs my primary concern is for kids. It is a shame that the National Government does not think beyond this bill and show that same level of concern for kids and for people who have no ability and no control. If I was to grow a few boysenberries throw in a bit of sugar and then try to sell it I have to go through the Food Bill which is about this thick because of the requirements to sell that. But what we have here is a reluctant Government that is thankfully passing a piece of legislation to try to control drugs. I know that Peter Dunne pushed for it and I acknowledge that. I was rung by a friend who has suffered for a long time the monkey on his back of drug addiction whose brother is a general practitioner who said: “Please please carry on with the good work that Peter Dunne has done in this area because I face on a regular basis young people coming into my surgery who are all but destroyed by an addiction—by a problem created from legal highs.” So we must move in this area. I acknowledge that the Government has with the provocation of Mr Dunne dare I say moved in this direction. I am less concerned about the effects on animals than I am about the effects on human beings. It is important that we move ahead here.But I suggest that the bill is not perfect and I suggest that we do need to look carefully and there will be some Supplementary Order Papers and some amendments that come up that the Government should look at very carefully. We cannot create more harm in our attempt to of course reduce harm in one area—two wrongs never make a right. We have to be sure that we are moving ahead that the onus of proof of safety falls upon any chemist or any weirdo who wants to create these drugs that they say are recreational but that we know are very very harmful. My concern is particularly for a young woman who might be pregnant who might consume these because she is told you can have a good time on them and they are safe so therefore they must be OK. That is the worst possible outcome—in vitro effects on unborn children and the effects on their lives from there on is the one thing that we have no idea of.So I go back to the I guess precedents set in the Food Bill where the Minister has indicated that we should go back and look at that bill and make improvements. It is this thick and that is fair enough because we do not want to produce anything in this country and sell it offshore that might in any way harm our consumers. Yet for how long have we had the ability for some wacky chemist to produce some—Mike Sabin: And what did Jim Anderton do for 8 years with BZP?Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: —weird outfit? And dare I say to the member over there be careful because if he can guarantee that this piece of legislation will keep any of these harmful drugs off the shelves and off the market that is great and I acknowledge his faith.What I say is that because of the reluctance of the National Government to move in this area I am concerned that this bill will not do all the things that we know need to bedone in this area—that is to completely ban these unless someone can prove that any product sold for any consumption must be safe. We do that with food; we must do that with any other substance that may be ingested. I am not sure that the Government has got it right. The Opposition will scrutinise this and look very carefully at all of the outcomes. But I state clearly that the most important focus must be on the kids and on the people who are affected by these drugs and who have no ability to control that ingestion—