Hague Kevin: Psychoactive Substances Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHague Kevin: Psychoactive Substances Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 09 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:11809. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KEVIN HAGUE (Green):I thank the Associate Minister of Health Todd McClay for his contribution and I take this opportunity to thank him for his gracious concession around the voting order for the Part 1 votes on this bill the Psychoactive Substances Bill. The contribution he has just made and indeed that from the Hon Annette King offer quite a good point of departure for me because the first set of points I want to make about Part 2—I am mindful of the time; these may be the only ones before the dinner break—are around the fact that we have some incoherence in our New Zealand law.There is a range of substances that people consume because it is fun to do so or they derive some personal benefit or utility from doing so but they pose some risk of harm and they are the substances that are regulated under the Misuse of Drugs Act. There is alcohol which is regulated under a separate statute and there is tobacco which again has a separate and different regulatory regime. And we are actually adding in this bill a fourth strand.For this to be a useful addition I think one of the characteristics that we need to look for is a way forward for converging those various strands into a single rational regulatory framework. I am very pleased to say—and I think there is probably violent agreement around the House on this—that this bill actually does provide a path forward for that convergence.To that end we have taken I guess provisions certainly from the tobacco framework and from the alcohol framework and pulled them into this bill. Indeed there could potentially be elements of the Misuse of Drugs Act—you know in fact I think there are even elements of that Act that we have used in this framework. One of those elements is the licensing regime and that is what is set out here in Part 2. It draws as the Minister has said quite heavily on the regime that we have in place for alcohol and it provides I guess a template for reform in those other strands.So both here in Part 2 under the licensing regime and indeed in Part 3 where we look at some of the regulatory responses that would be available to the authority we see aspects that could be applied to those other strands. Gradually over time it will make sense for this House to pull those strands further and further together to actually converge them in a single framework that regulates all of those substances.One of the things as speakers have mentioned that Part 2 does is provide the retail licences—an innovation from the Health Committee and one that is certainly very valuable. It is interesting that the select committee rejected only a few years earlier the prospect of using a licensing regime for tobacco retailers.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.KEVIN HAGUE: As I was saying before the dinner break this bill represents a great opportunity for us to be moving towards convergence of the way that we regulate various kinds of substances. Some of the particular features in Part 2 that are useful are the licensing of retailers which is of course something that we have done in relation to alcohol but which we still need to do in relation to tobacco. Similarly the opportunity for councils to develop their own plans as to where retailers may be located is another innovation that we have made in relation to alcohol and maybe that indicates the kind of direction that we need to be taking in relation to tobacco.The register of products as others have mentioned is a very very good innovation. In particular the change made by the select committee to incorporate into the register products for which applications had been made but were declined is a very important opportunity for us to have more information about these substances. Otherwise there would be substances around that people would have no information about at all. As others have said the manufacturing code of practice is another important element of Part 2 of the bill and another very good change made by the select committee bringing forward the establishment of that code of practice from 1 year to 6 months.I want to remind the Committee of the whole House about the important balance to be struck here. It is important that this bill does not end up being prohibition by stealth. Some of these substances must get through this process must get licences for this to be meaningful because if it is prohibition by stealth what will happen is that we will force this market into a black market and the concerns that everyone from right around the House has been expressing around the health and welfare of New Zealanders and particularly young people will be magnified in a black market situation.As I indicated in the debate on Part 1 most of Supplementary Order Paper 260 put forward by my colleague Mojo Mathers in fact relates to elements of Part 2. I just want to recap some of the basic points here. One is that had the select committee been able to consider the submissions this House would have been able to see evidence of alternatives to animal testing. Those alternatives are at least as good as—and maybe better in fact—than animal testing for determining safety.The approach that is advocated in the Supplementary Order Paper is one of saying that when someone applies for a licence the information that they use to support that application may not include data derived from animal testing except historical animal testing. What that does is it actually then puts the onus on those applying for licences to invest in and support alternative approaches to animal testing.Nobody is saying “Well you don’t get to use animal testing therefore there will be no testing; therefore all of these products should just simply come to the shelves and be available for sale.” No one at all is suggesting that. What is instead being suggested is that there is a narrower range of tests—only the non-animal tests—that can be used for the licences that people apply for in Part 2. So effectively what we would be saying is the person applying for a licence still has to prove that their product is no more than low risk but they have to do it without using animal testing. The reason that this is so important is that the alternatives to animal testing although at least as effective are not used currently because of expense. They are a much more expensive test than the animal testing equivalent.So although the select committee did hear some submissions from manufacturers and importers of the products saying that they oppose the use of animal testing the economic cold hard fact is that some of those applying for licences in those categories will choose to use animal testing if the regime allows them to simply because it is cheaper—simply because it is cheaper.So it is in their interest and we can understand their argument for wanting to continue to be able to use animal testing. What we cannot understand is the Government’s argument because the reality is that both the Government and ourselves are saying we want there to be no more than low risk; only we—those who are supporting Mojo Mathers’ Supplementary Order Paper—are saying that in addition to that we want animals not to be harmed.