Psychoactive Substances Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePsychoactive Substances Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 27 June 2013. Volume:691;Page:11390. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Psychoactive Substances BillSecond ReadingHon 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.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North):It is a pleasure to rise and speak in the second reading of the Psychoactive Substances Bill. Can I welcome the new Minister Todd McClay to the debate on this issue and can I suggest to him that the process and the thinking behind this piece of legislation were far superior than for some of the legislation that he promoted in the House as a private member. I hope he learns from this experience because this is the way to go Minister. I really also—Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s not a high test.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: It is not a high test no. I also ought to recognise the Hon Peter Dunne who is the architect of this legislation who steered it through its first stages in the House and who steered it from its genesis as a set of recommendations out of the Law Commission report to becoming legislation. It is good to see Peter Dunne in the House this evening.Can I say thank you very much to colleagues on the Health Committee. I have to say barring a couple of process issues—and I do need to reflect on those—the constructive approach that all members of the select committee took to this legislation was encouraging. It is the sort of thing that I wish the New Zealand public could actually get to see more often. I want to acknowledge particularly Paul Hutchison and Scott Simpson from the National Party side who really worked hard to improve this bill. I think it has come back to the House in much better shape than it was in when it went to the select committee.I did say there were a couple of process issues and I do need to just briefly reflect on those. The first is the fact that we had such a short time frame at the select committee to deal with this bill. It has been said by the Government that that was in order to have the legislation enacted as quickly as possible and to have it enacted before the expiry of the temporary ban notices that were placed on some of the psychoactive products. It is true that that is necessary. However we did not need to curtail the select committee process; we simply needed to get this legislation to the House much sooner than we did. In fact because the Law Commission reported its recommendations over 2 years ago there has been plenty of time for the Government to make this a priority.This is no reflection in any way whatsoever on Peter Dunne. I know he has always viewed this as a priority. The Government—the National Party in particular—simply did not prioritise this and caused some difficulties for the select committee in dealing with all the issues because of the shortened time frame. One of those issues was animal testing. I do not want to dwell on that issue too much in this speech but suffice to say that it was a mistake for the National Party members on the committee to vote against hearing the submissions referring to animal testing. We needed to hear all sides of the debate. We were not able to consider that issue properly because those submissions were blocked. That was not a matter of scope; that was a question that the committee had to make a decision on and we did not hear those submissions because NationalParty members voted against the committee doing so. It is as simple as that and that is all I really want to say about that.We have made this bill a better bill. The first thing we have done is that we have amended the purpose and we have added the words “to protect the health of and minimise harm to individuals who use psychoactive substances.” That absolutely has to be at the heart of this legislation. It has to be driving this legislation that its purpose is to reduce the harm to people who use psychoactive substances and indeed to the people around them and their communities. That is a positive change. It is incredibly positive. I think probably the most important change for the families the parents and the communities who have taken an interest in this issue is that we have brought into the primary legislation the banning of the sale of psychoactive products from dairies. It will be absolutely clear from day one when this legislation is passed that it will not be possible to buy any psychoactive product from the local dairy. It is not appropriate for these substances to sit alongside milk bread lollies and all the other things that we buy from our local stores. That is a massively positive change and in fact I think for many people it is the only change that is important.There will be a transition period. There will be a transition period in which the substances to which a temporary ban notice has not been applied will be able to stay on the shelves so long as the manufacturers of those products apply for them to become an approved substance. To reiterate that does not mean that there will be a transition period in which they can continue to be sold from dairies. Again from day one they will be out of dairies and that is important to note.When the bill was originally drafted there were a number of licences available—licences to manufacture a psychoactive product and licences to import a psychoactive product. We have added in the select committee some more licences the most important of those being a licence to retail the product. The people who sell these products need to be of good character they need to know what it is that they are doing they need to know about the products and they need to be able to provide information to the people who are purchasing products from them. I am very pleased that the select committee saw fit to introduce that retailers’ licence.We considered at length the issue of point-of-sale advertising and the packaging of psychoactive substances. We have not gone quite as far as plain packaging and that is in recognition of the fact that not all these substances are the same. They are different chemical compounds and they are different substances that have different effects on people. But we have heavily regulated exactly what those packages can look like. They must not be designed in a way that appeals to young people and they must carry information about both the ingredients in those products and the places that people can seek help should they find that the product has had an adverse effect on them.There are great restrictions on point-of-sale advertising and indeed the only advertising that will be possible will be inside the stores that are licensed to sell these products. My vision is that these will essentially be stand-alone stores into which people will enter really only for the reason of purchasing these and associated products. That I think is appropriate. They should be R18 stores in my view. Only people who are 18 or over should be purchasing those products and only people 18 and over should be going into those stores to purchase those products.We considered the issue of whether or not we should apply an excise tax to these substances. It is something that we do for alcohol and it is something that we do for tobacco. I think it would be a positive move to apply an excise tax one day. We heard advice from the ministry—and indeed the Drug Foundation supported this view—that what we need to do is see how the market develops and what the pricing points are and revisit this issue in the future when we have a better idea of exactly what level of taxshould be applied. I support that approach and I hope that we will get an opportunity to review that in the near future.Another issue that the select committee took a considerable amount of time to consider was the issue of possession and whether or not it should be an offence to possess an unapproved substance and whether or not it should be an offence for a person aged under 18 to possess either an approved or an unapproved substance. This was an issue that challenged the select committee. Again we gave it great consideration and there was constructive consideration from members of all parties. In the end the select committee came to the view that for people aged under 18 making it an offence was useful because it created the series of events in which police could ensure that early intervention occurred and young people could be referred to health providers—that level of early intervention would happen. The police assured us that their first step would not be to issue an offence notice against the young person.It is important to remember that these are not criminal offences; these are infringement offences. They rate alongside a speeding fine or a parking fine and they do not result in a criminal record for young people. However for the possession of an unapproved substance by people aged 18 years or over initially the select committee came to the view that this was not an appropriate thing to do simply because it would be so difficult for police to enforce. It is very difficult for police to know on the spot whether someone is in possession of an approved or unapproved substance. In fact the testing to determine that takes a matter of months. That does not support the notion that this should be an on-the-spot fine. The Health Committee initially came to the view that because it did not really advance the purpose of the bill which is to reduce the harm relating to these psychoactive substances it was really better to simply remove the offence of possession of an unapproved substance.However the Minister came back and the Government insisted that we retain that possession offence. I would like us to revisit that and I have offered a Supplementary Order Paper that we can consider during the Committee of the whole House to revisit that issue and possibly remove the offence of being in possession of an unapproved substance. With these final words I simply want to say that Labour supports this bill and we hope that it is progressed with haste.Hon PETER DUNNE (Independent—Ōhariu):I seek the leave of the House to table a petition that was presented to me in my last days as the Associate Minister of Health from the Manurewa community signed by 3533 people opposing the opening of a new legal highs store in downtown Manurewa.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. You can table that.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Before the member goes on—not to be unhelpful—could we just inquire as to the process now whether that petition is to be referred anywhere or not? Normally when petitions are tabled they are referred off to a committee.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No he asked only for it to be tabled. Maybe in the course of the member’s speech he might like to comment on that but he asked only for it to be tabled and that was what leave was granted for.Hon PETER DUNNE: I am delighted to speak on the second reading of the Psychoactive Substances Bill. I must confess that the debate this afternoon is taking place in slightly different circumstances from those I had originally imagined would occur when we talked about this bill proceeding at this time. None the less I am very pleased with the work that the Health Committee has done in terms of its considerationof the legislation and with the bill that has emerged which looks like enjoying the unanimous support of this House.Hon John Banks: No no no.Hon PETER DUNNE: I am sorry. I should have known better perhaps than to presume that the ACT Party would be in line with public opinion. The reason I sought to table this petition very simply is that it is indicative of the wide range of community concern up and down New Zealand about the impact of psychoactive substances being sold with impunity through dairies and various other outlets by some very irresponsible retailers. The Manurewa example was one and I know that the member for Manurewa and Dr Calder had been very vigorous in their local efforts and I was pleased to receive this petition.I want to correct a myth that has been circulating about this bill. It did not actually arise as a result of the Law Commission’s recommendations. In fact the genesis of this bill came at the UN convention on narcotic drugs meeting in Vienna in early 2011. It became clear to me in discussions at that meeting that the British Government at that stage was seeking to move down this path. I thought that was a particularly good idea and as we were developing our interim regime I tasked officials in the Ministry of Health with finding out all we could about what the British were proposing and then developing a regime that met our needs. Along the way the Law Commission made its recommendations. The irony is that when I went back to Vienna in March this year for the follow-up discussions the British were curious to know where we were because they were actually stalled in their efforts. In other words we picked up their idea from 2 years ago and had the legislation almost before Parliament at that stage and they were still working through their internal bureaucracy to get to that point and were asking us with some envy what progress we were making and how this would occur.I acknowledge the comments by both the Associate Minister of Health Todd McClay and the previous speaker Iain Lees-Galloway about my own role and I thank them for that. It is no secret that I was frustrated with the time that it was taking to get this legislation into the House and I am delighted now that we are through the process and that the bill looks like passing fairly quickly.This is world-breaking legislation. The reason is it tackles the problem in quite a lateral way. It simply says to the manufacturers and suppliers of these pernicious substances: “You prove they are low risk and if you can we will let you sell them.” It is a very simple proposition. Other countries—the Australians the Irish the French the Americans the Russians the British many of the European nations with whom I have spoken—have all been playing the same game of trying to define what a psychoactive substance is and how you ban it. There have been many variations on that theme. All have come to the point of saying it is too difficult and asking what a way through is. New Zealand is being looked on as world-leading in this regard. If this legislation is as I believe it will be successful then we can expect to see that model picked up and implemented right around the world because this issue is not one for just this country; it is one that is affecting every jurisdiction. When you look at the debates that are going on in those countries and you follow the tenor of the argument it is exactly the same as we have had here over the last couple of years or so.One of the great frustrations that I also experienced during my time as the Associate Minister was the anger of communities who wanted to see action and the sense that they had was often reflected in the comments that I would get asking why I did not just simply ban these things. Well for various reasons that is not possible. Their chemical composition is such that these things are almost indefinable. You ban one substance and one element is changed and the same substance reappears. In my time as Associate Minister we banned 30-odd different substances over 50-odd products and we werevigorous in doing so. But you can go only so far down that path. That is why this legislation becomes vital and necessary. I make no apology for the fact that we will set a deliberately high bar. I make no apology for the fact that those who want to go through the process will pay an exorbitant fee to get there. There are huge proceeds involved from this trade and I think it is only fair and reasonable to expose those people to a very rigorous standard of testing and a very rigorous process before we even get to the point where they get on to the market.Let me deal with one of the great red herrings of this debate the animal testing issue. There was never any intention—ever—to embark upon a programme of animal testing associated with these products. There was never ever any intent. What happened was simply this. What happened—Hon John Banks: There was going to be.Hon PETER DUNNE: If the member would just give me the courtesy of some silence I will explain to him what actually happened. Late last year an Official Information Act request was lodged with the Ministry of Health for a whole range of papers relating to this new regime. One of the papers was a paper prepared by Dr Leo Schep of the National Poisons Centre in Dunedin. Dr Schep has done a huge amount of work in this area but is at one end of the spectrum in terms of the debate. He is a purist. I acknowledge that. He is an exceptional toxicologist but he is a purist. He produced a paper that was headed “Report to the New Zealand Government on Animal Testing”. It was his initiative. Unfortunately when we sought to release that batch of papers I did not check the title page. What appeared in theSunday Star-Timeswas: “Here is an official report to the New Zealand Government recommending animal testing.” It was an unsolicited piece of advice. That was why I ruled out—very immediately—the LD50 test. That was why I worked with the select committee through the expert advisory committee to make sure that the instances where animal testing might be even a possibility were minimised and reduced. But I say to the House it was never the intention—Hon John Banks: Is there any animal testing? Is there any animal testing?Hon PETER DUNNE: Mr Banks if you ask a question it is customary to let the person answer it before you come back with the next one.Hon John Banks: OK. Will there be any animal testing?Hon PETER DUNNE: I am just in the process of explaining to the yabbering preacher to my left the answer to his question. It was never the intention to embark upon an animal testing regime as part of this legislation.Hon John Banks: Will there be animal testing?Hon PETER DUNNE: Can I explain again. This is becoming like a routine. It was never the intention to embark upon any form of animal testing. The expert advisory committee has given very clear advice to the select committee. The reality is that a lot of the stuff—and I am still getting emails today in Cyrillic script in various different languages from around the world from people saying: “Don’t test psychoactive substances on dogs.” That was never the intention.Hon John Banks: Will it happen?Hon PETER DUNNE: It was never going to happen. The member says: “Will it happen?”. Can I say it was never going to happen.Hon John Banks: Will it happen?Hon PETER DUNNE: Dear me. You can go only so far in terms of legislating—Hon John Banks: Will it happen: yes or no? Will animal testing—Hon PETER DUNNE: Can I say again to the member: it was never the intention. How many words does he need to explain it? I am not going—Hon John Banks: No you won’t you puppy-hater.Hon PETER DUNNE: Oh that is absolute ridiculous nonsense. If the member for Epsom wants to go out there and oppose this legislation he can answer to his communities he can answer to the parents and to all of the people affected by it and he will be the one who will be reviled as the person out of step with public opinion. I say to the ACT Party that if it wants to show any form of relevance it will grow up it will respect the conscience of New Zealanders on this issue and it will support this legislation. He is welcome to be out on a limb; it will be a very lonely place I assure him.The bulk of New Zealanders want to see this legislation passed immediately. It will be and I acknowledge the support of the Government. I acknowledge the support of other parties that take an approach in this particular legislation that is beneficial. This is the opportunity to make huge progress. The world is watching us. I think this Parliament will not only do the people of New Zealand and the young people of New Zealand a huge service in passing this legislation but will set a standard that other nations will follow. Hopefully working collectively at an international level we can start to turn back the clock on this particular issue.LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa):It is my pleasure to take a call on the Psychoactive Substances Bill in this second reading. I am also a very proud member of the Health Committee which as my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway has said has worked very very collaboratively to bring to the House a piece of legislation that I think we are all very proud of. I want to acknowledge the Hon Peter Dunne and the leadership that he has shown in bringing this piece of legislation to the House and to also thank him for tabling a petition on behalf of 3533 members of the Manurewa community. In acknowledging that petition being tabled I want to acknowledge Jan Lim who owns a chemist’s on Great South Road very near a legal high shop that was established 2 months ago I believe to dump these products as this legislation progressed through the House. In acknowledging Jan I want to acknowledge Dr Tim Wilkinson who owns and manages the health centre next door to this legal high shop and who has worked very hard to be a representative and an advocate of our community. I want to acknowledge Mr Youkhanis who is the barber in the store next to the legal high shop in my Manurewa electorate and also young people such as Meliana Ngata who is the chair of the Manurewa Youth Council and Warriors of Change representatives Benjamin Tamarua and Susan Fotunga who organised a march for the community of Manurewa to come out against this legal high shop but in support of the Psychoactive Substances Bill.The main point that I want to make in my contribution really is about the select committee process and the number of changes or amendments to the original legislation that we have worked so collaboratively on. I would like to highlight for example that in the original purpose statement for this particular bill nowhere did we state that this bill was about protecting the health of and minimising the harm to individuals who use psychoactive substances. The committee came to the conclusion that actually this was about instituting a regulatory regime but coupled with that the heart of this legislation was to make sure that New Zealanders in the consumption of these products were going to be safe. That I think is a very fundamental point about this piece of legislation because these substances are not drugs. These substances are not foods. These substances were pretty much unregulated. They were nothings that a whole lot of people capitalised on packaged up and sold to New Zealanders. The reality of these substances was that they were hurting our community. Technically I think they were poisons. So the ability of the select committee yes to institute a regulatory regime but fundamentally to say that at the heart of this legislation we are going to protect the health and safety of New Zealanders is something that needs to be acknowledged.I certainly received and I know that many of the Health Committee members received communications particularly from mental health workers who were very concerned about their ability to engage constructively particularly with young people who were going through counselling because they had addictions. The fact was that these substances were legal substances so they may have got off the drugs but they were getting into these psychoactive substances. And also one of the things that we made very clear was that there could be a demand on public services in terms of mental health and addiction services. We particularly wanted to highlight that that was something that the select committee had obviously heard and was concerned about. So we have given notice to the health Minister and to the health sector that that is a possible consequence of this bill going through and regulation of these particular products.I also want to highlight a couple of other substantive debates that we had. One of them was around the age of purchase. It was very interesting because again all the professionals who understand addiction and who understand the development of our brains are particularly concerned about how these substances engage or interact with young people’s consumption. Again we are all very clear that we should actually have an age of purchase of either 20 or 21. It did I guess inspire a lot of heated discussion around the table within the context of a bill that we had approved just recently as a Parliament in terms of the alcohol consumption age. Fundamentally I think what we have done is reinforce a decision that this Parliament had previously made. I have to say that I stood on the side of making the age of purchase either 20 or 21 based on the scientific evidence.At the end of the day as you will see and as people will see if they read this bill what we have primarily done is said that these psychoactive substances fit into the category of either alcohol or tobacco which is what a lot of the initiatives or amendments to this legislation have replicated. In doing that we then had to be consistent. We could not say that psychoactive substances were worse and so they deserved a higher age of consumption because from our perspective alcohol tobacco and psychoactive substances—all of these products—have detrimental effects particularly on young people. So to the Manurewa Youth Council and to the young people of Manurewa who were very clear to both me and Cam Calder that we should be advocating for an increase in the age of purchase that is the rationale. Hopefully they will understand that that is the position that we came to.The other heated discussion we had was about whether or not we should provide a mechanism for the police to engage with young people under the age of 18 who are in possession of a substance whether it be an approved substance or an unapproved substance. What we did in the end was to enable the police—through them coming to the Health Committee—to be empowered to engage with young people and basically to confiscate any psychoactive substance that they have in their possession. To enable them to do that we had to create an offence but we as a select committee were very clear that it would not be a criminal offence. We do not want young people to be criminalised for being in possession of psychoactive substances. But what we did want was for the police to have the tool to engage with young people. It was our hope that in engaging they would actually look at whether or not health or social services were an appropriate medium. At worst-case scenario there would be an infringement for possession but it will not be a criminal offence.I would like just briefly to touch on the aspects of sponsorship and advertising. The select committee was very clear that any retailer or manufacturer of psychoactive substances would not be able to advertise the product or provide sponsorship of the product that then puts the product out into the market. Advertising particularly isrelevant to the shop in the heart of our Manurewa community the High Zone shop so we were very clear and we insisted on a specific provision clause 53A which sets out restrictions on what retailers can call shops. From our perspective that has been specifically put in to ensure that High Zone shops or legal high shops cannot advertise and establish themselves in communities like ours. The other thing that we were very clear about was that local people—our local boards—have to be involved in the decision making about where these shops are established. We made specific mention of these shops not being near schools not being able to have a detrimental effect on young people particularly. What I say to Angela Dalton who is the chair of the Manurewa Local Board to Colleen Brown to Simeon Brown and to Toa Greening who all made submissions on this bill is that this piece of legislation will give you the tools so that you can protect our communities.I want to thank once again my fellow committee members. It was a very constructive process. I look forward to this bill being passed as soon as possible because we have to get these products off the shelves and out of our communities. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.KEVIN HAGUE (Green):Could I begin as others have done by congratulating and thanking other members of the Health Committee who considered the Psychoactive Substances Bill. I believe that we collectively did a pretty good job. As Iain Lees-Galloway has said we worked very collegially apart from I think on one issue which I will come to later on. I also want to thank the officials from the Ministry of Health and other departments who worked with us on this bill. We were given a tight time frame to work in and they worked very well under pressure.In the first reading debate I praised the bill for a variety of things. It is world-first legislation. It provides a framework that bases our response to these substances on health effects. It is a framework that makes the regulatory response proportional to the harm that is being prevented. It is a framework that sets the bar at low risk not no risk. So it is not a prohibition-based response to these substances which I think is practical and visionary recognition of what works and what does not work in regulating such substances.We are a country that has been very much at the forefront of this debate. We were pretty much the first country to experience the wave of psychoactive substances with the benzylpiperazine products. We were the first country to go into the failed regime of temporary prohibition notices. Now here we are the first country to be developing this kind of framework which is modern proportionate and rational drug policy. Accordingly the review that we do of this legislation in 5 years’ time—and I am very pleased that the Government has built that into the bill—is going to be very important. It is going to enable us to learn from it and it is going to enable the rest of the world to learn from it too.In my first reading speech I indicated a number of areas that needed improvement. I want to run through those very quickly. Others have touched on some of them. I said that improving health had to be clearly stated in the purpose of the bill. Improving health and reducing harm are now very clearly stated as others have pointed out. I said that the bill needed to define what low risk constituted. The bill does not do that. I have to say—and this is I guess the strength of our select committee process in New Zealand—that I changed my mind. Submitters to the bill changed my mind on that issue and I agree that actually it is better for practice to inform that definition and that is what is going to happen.I indicated that a number of the measures that are used in the control of alcohol and tobacco ought to be brought over and used in this bill also to add to the suite of tools available for regulation of psychoactive substances. We looked at controls of locationhours sponsorship advertising labelling and price in relation to each of those substances—alcohol and tobacco—and on most of those fronts we have now added in the possibility to regulate those matters.Iain Lees-Galloway has mentioned the reasons that we have not moved on excise tax at this time. Like Mr Lees-Galloway I also was convinced by submitters on that point. I was initially a fan of plain packaging and I changed my mind about that too. I changed my mind on the basis that unlike tobacco the psychoactive substances that we are dealing with are not all ones that uniformly cause harm. In fact the ones that we are allowing through the gate with this bill are ones that by definition carry low risk so the same level of response that we have on tobacco is not appropriate. Also these substances are not all the same. Unlike a cigarette or a pouch of tobacco which is more or less the same thing regardless of who the manufacturer is these substances are actually different; they do different things. So plain packaging is not appropriate.In my first reading speech I called for a shorter transition period and that has been adopted. I also called for the licensing of retailers and that has also been adopted. I think that is a very good development. Overall what we see with this bill is I think the beginning of a convergence of the way that we approach the regulation of substances that cause harm but none the less as a society we say that a person ought to have the right to use that substance and to engage with that harm. I think that convergence is a very good thing and certainly one of the things that I look forward to in the future is further convergence of the regulation of these kinds of substances.Back in the first reading speech I expressed the hope that we would offer the world a model that would be worthy of being world-leading. I think that with a couple of exceptions we have done that. I just want to come to those exceptions now. One is around the possession offences. There has already been some discussion here today. The bill contains an infringement offence for possessing an unapproved substance. I think that that should be scrapped and I really hope that the Minister—and I appreciated his words today—will consider doing that and that the House does in fact have opportunities to do so.The result of possession offences in the Misuse of Drugs Act has not been to see more people treated it has not been to see less consumption and it has not been to see less harm and there is no reason to suppose that any of those would be the effect of including a possession offence here. Instead what it mainly has done is it has tied up police time and punished people. I do not know that that is really consistent with the objective that we now have for this bill. There have not been possession offences in the temporary prohibition notices and not a single person has been clamouring for there to be such possession offences. So the non-existence of such offences under those notices has not been a problem and if there is not a problem we do not need to provide a solution for it.As Mr Lees-Galloway has mentioned the idea of infringement notices is to provide an on-the-spot response to a minor offence. In fact in this case an on-the-spot response is not possible because the testing to determine whether this is an approved or unapproved substance takes months. So it is out of kilter with infringement notices—the rubric upon which those are based—it provides no real benefit and there is significant harm. I do not believe on balance that it is worthwhile. The minority report refers to the under-18s issue and we are going to be watching that closely because we believe that that is likely to be used more to harass young people than to actually result in their receiving treatment.The other issue that I address in the minority report—and it has to be addressed I believe by this House; and my colleague Mojo Mathers will speak more about it—is the animal testing issue. The fact is that the previous Associate Minister of Healthencouraged people to make submissions about animal testing. The committee did receive advice from the Clerk of the House that amendments that absolutely ruled out animal testing per se would be out of scope. We received no advice that those submissions were out of scope. So the chair was wrong to rule those submissions out of scope. The National majority was wrong to not hear those submissions.How it stands now is that a whole bunch of New Zealanders have been effectively disenfranchised from their opportunity to have a say about this bill. The only people now to have actually read those submissions—and we provide a little bit of flavour in the minority report demonstrating how there are suitable alternatives to animal testing to establish safety—are the Green Party members because we held our own hearings to hear those submissions.That is not how the process ought to work. It is not how the process ought to work. We must adopt Mojo Mathers’ Supplementary Order Paper 260 in the Committee stage in order to have that world-best practice—that model for the rest of the world. Thank you.Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT):I rise to oppose the Psychoactive Substances Bill and I will oppose it at every turn until it ends up on the statute book with the numbers except for me in this House. This bill is well intentioned—there is no doubt about that—and is aimed at ensuring that psychoactive substances sold in New Zealand are as safe as possible. I want to pay my respects to the new Associate Minister of Health Todd McClay for his noble intentions with this bill which he inherited from the ex - Associate Minister. However I simply cannot support it.I find it totally unacceptable that this bill fails to rule out—to rule out—testing these recreational drugs on innocent animals. Protecting animals is ingrained in my soul. I think most New Zealanders will be outraged at the idea that chemicals people use just for fun can be and likely will be tested on harmless animals. Animals will be put to extreme pain animals will suffer and animals will die. That is why the countries in the European Union have banned the testing of cosmetics on animals—in particular rabbits.We must remember that psychoactive drug substances are not a necessity and we should say to people today from this Parliament that they are high-risk substances under any circumstances—they are not a necessity for the well-being of the human person. Recreational drugs are not something one needs to consume. They are not something people should consume. We should say from this Parliament today that young people any person should not be consuming these substances. That is the first message. They are not lifesaving medicines or something that will relieve suffering. People do not need to take these chemicals.Their prolific use will cause widespread animal suffering. There is simply no justification or reason for unnecessary drugs like these to be tested on animals and I for one find it deeply offensive that any Government would sanction this. Animals will be in pain and animals will die in the name of people wanting to take mind-altering drugs on the weekend. That is simply wrong and unacceptable. Animals must not experience suffering for economic or entertainment reasons or for lining the pockets of the drug importers and the drug dealers who will be selling them at the dairies to addle the minds of our kids.I know the Health Committee inserted a new clause in the bill to state that animal testing should be used only when necessary. But animal testing will never be necessary for recreational drug purposes. It will never be necessary to cruelly treat a beagle puppy in the name of a recreational party drug. Evidence shows animal testing is not necessary at all to prove the safety of these mind-altering chemicals. Dr Ian Shaw of the University of Canterbury says that non-animal testing can adequately establish whethera substance has an unacceptable risk of acute toxicity. Cell culture ex vivo and structure-activity relationship studies can all be used to establish the risk. Non-animal testing regimes can test all of these substances to establish the risk.I cannot for the life of me see the mischief in allowing the good people of Save Animals from Exploitation and the SPCA to come to the select committee to make a submission. What would have been the mischief of saying to these good Samaritans in our community who protect harmless animals from cruelty: “Come to the select committee of the Parliament and have your say.”? I know why they were not allowed. It was because the ex - Associate Minister of Health would have been embarrassed by what they would have had to say about our obligations to treat animals with respect and dignity.This afternoon in the House the ex - Associate Minister said: “It’s not our intention to test these substances on animals.” He said it four times: “It’s not our intention.” I interjected from that seat there: “Tell me ex-Minister will animals be used for testing?”. He said: “It’s not our intention.” The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I asked the ex-Minister four times. The naive ex-Minister said “It’s not our intention. It’s never been our intention.” but that is not what the bill says. The bill does not rule out the testing on beagle puppies of these mind-altering dangerous chemicals. It does not rule it out.There would be no mischief whatsoever in taking Mojo Mathers’ Supplementary Order Paper 260 and embracing it and then we would have world-class leading legislation on mind-altering substances that will be sold by the drug dealers and the dairies on the corner mainly to our young people. We would have that there. What would have been the mischief? What would have been the mischief of taking Mojo Mathers’ Supplementary Order Paper? It was a pigheaded attitude by the ex-Minister that stopped it and nothing more. I know my friends in the National Party on the select committee would not have worried if that had been the directive from the ex-Minister. But the ex-Minister could not see it in his heart and in his soul to protect harmless animals from being treated with these dangerous drugs.If you cannot prove your fun drug of choice is safe without putting animals in abject misery you cannot sell the drug. If you need to pay more for more expensive non-animal testing in China where it will be tested I say tough luck again. That is the price you pay and that is the price you have to pay for the profiteers of these dangerous chemicals who sell them to our kids. The reality is the bill could well result in drugs being tested on animals in places like China and India where animal welfare is shamefully non-existent. Most of these substances will be tested in China and in India where there are no animal welfare rights no animal welfare care and no responsibility.The statement in the bill that overseas testing must be carried out in accordance with the New Zealand Animal Welfare Act is nonsense because there is no way for us in New Zealand to assess what goes on in the torture chambers of animal testing laboratories in South-east Asia. There is no way we can test there. There is no way we can put our high standards of animal welfare on regimes there. Despite assurances from the ex-Minister this bill fails to rule out the use of extremely cruel LD50 tests. We will wait and see where that goes and we will talk about it later.But even worse these animal testing places test their drugs on man’s best friends as I said—dogs or more important on beagle puppies bred for purpose. Some have said that Mr Kerridge the eminent Mr Kerridge from the SPCA supports this. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr Kerridge has told me: “It is a matter of record that I am opposed to any animal testing for the approval of psychoactive products and my presence on this committee does not alter or condone it at all.”Finally I want to thank Mojo Mathers for her work on this bill and her Supplementary Order Paper which I will be supporting. I am sure other parties will support it as well. But I say to her and the Green Party that if your amendment fails at the Committee stage to get the numbers you should vote against this bill anyway. The Green Party has an excellent set of credentials around animal rights and animal welfare and I applaud it today for those.We are sacrificing animals at the altar of recreational drug-use. It is a disgrace to this country. It should not happen. It does not need to happen. We could stop it. It could be world-leading education. I repeat these words: as the most powerful creatures on this earth humans have a responsibility to protect all animals from senseless worthless and shameless cruelty at all times and in all places and I am starting with this legislation here today in this Parliament.BARBARA STEWART (NZ First):I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Psychoactive Substances Bill. This bill has been a long time coming. It has taken a long time for the former Associate Minister of Health to front up to the problems caused by legal highs but we have this legislation here now and we now find that we could be world leaders in this area. I would also like to acknowledge the chair of the Health Committee Dr Paul Hutchison. He has done a wonderful job with this legislation particularly when one takes into account the views that many of us had prior to going to the select committee. Thank you too to the rest of the select committee. It was a very constructive process helped out by the committee officials.Ideally—and before we went to the select committee—New Zealand First would have liked to see these substances banned. We know they are a very high risk but during the select committee process we had our opinions changed because these products contain many ingredients that are commonly available for purchase now. Of course the former Associate Minister the Hon Peter Dunne outlined at quite some length the reasons as to why these products could not be banned. But the bottom line is that New Zealand First did not want our young people going for a trip never leaving the building never leaving the street and coming back with massive challenges as baggage.Week in week out we have seen reports of these substances leading our young people into crime and reports of the serious harm that is being created by the consumption of these untested products. The bottom line is that we still do not know what the long-term effects are of consumption of these products.We know that petty offences are taking place and of course serious crimes. The effects that these substances have on one’s well-being have been widely documented. It has been shameful that under the current legislation New Zealanders have had very limited means to actually prevent harmful substances from being sold manufactured or even imported into New Zealand. We have been putting the manufacturers of these substances ahead of the well-being of everyday New Zealanders. These companies have been able to manufacture new legal highs. They import them and distribute them as they please. The Government has been always behind the eight ball having to try to continually monitor these drugs and placing every dodgy substance on the misuse of drugs register when it became a problem. Consequently the Government was always left two steps behind running to try to catch up and that is not a good situation when the Government is actually supposed to be running the country.New Zealand First supports this bill because it actually protects the health and safety of New Zealanders which is most important. We know that legal highs are largely detrimental to our nation’s health. Unfortunately they are lucrative to the manufacturers and the sellers. Most of the time we do not know what is in these substances or the effects that they are going to have on people. We are going to have a change on this front which is very positive.Legal highs are basically being marketed blind without the purchaser knowing or even caring about what they contain and how they can encourage dangerous behaviour and without them knowing that legal highs may make people seriously ill that they should not be used in association with alcohol and that they can even endanger young lives. We constantly read pages and pages of news in various newspapers right throughout the country of how New Zealanders have put themselves at risk by taking these legal highs. We know that these substances are associated with numerous mental health issues violence—a whole range of issues. So they are not good products as they currently stand.The purchasing and the advertising restrictions are adequate for the time being. Like previous speakers we initially thought that these products should have been restricted to those who are over 20. We have got a very conservative view on the age of purchase but we have agreed that perhaps the legislation should be in line with the alcohol legislation. The ban on sales from dairies and having no advertising at point of sale is also good. We needed to have something in this way. It is not good enough when bags of sweets are given away by dairy owners who did not really want these products associated with drug dealing. It is a bad situation when we are allowing dairy owners to be the legalised drug dealers in the community. These products should not be sold alongside newspapers and chocolate and iceblocks and sweets but this bill will sort out this problem which we are very happy about.I was talking to my taxi driver and he had actually been sent into a dairy to purchase one of these products along with a can of V for the woman who required it. He was actually looking in the freezer part of the cabinet. He thought that it was perhaps some sort of iceblock or perhaps another product like V. He was shocked to find out that it was actually synthetic cannabis that he was carrying in his taxi to take back to the customer.New Zealand First supports the provisions in the bill that wish to make manufacturers prove that their products are safe. The testing should be the responsibility of the manufacturer. They make mega-money from this particular product so it is time they ensured that their products are legitimate and that the substances they contain provide only a low risk for consumers. The onus has to be on the manufacturers here.New Zealand First along with others wanted plain packaging for these particular products but throughout the select committee process we like other parties changed our mind on this particular aspect. We are very happy with the labelling requirements that are going to require all products to have their active ingredients listed a phone number for the National Poisons Centre the contact details for the product’s New Zealand manufacturer or supplier plus a warning that it should not be consumed with alcohol.The bill is a much-needed start at regulating the uses of psychoactive substances; it is something that we are very pleased to see. One of the issues that we believe should be at the forefront for all New Zealanders is the health and safety of our young people particularly when we read in the paper about the growing violence that is created by these substances. Psychoactive substances need to be heavily regulated. We have got paramedics speaking out about how these legal highs are now a much larger problem than the illicit drugs that are available.New Zealand First supports the tough new penalties that this bill will actually introduce: 8 years in prison for importing making or supplying banned substances and 2 years in prison for importing making or supplying untested substances. We believe that this bill is a very positive step forward. These drugs will be tried and tested. We will not have these drugs in dairies and we know that advertising is not going to be as widespread as it is at this point. It is for all of these reasons that New Zealand Firstsupports this bill and we look forward to its speedy passage through the House. Thank you.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua):Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very innovative Psychoactive Substances Bill. I would like to acknowledge and thank first of all the Hon Peter Dunne who has pressed on with this bill. I was under the impression that the bill came about through the Law Commission’s recommendations but he has told us this afternoon that it was through a United Nations committee. I think the main point is that this bill requires manufacturers to show that these substances are of minimal risk. Might I also acknowledge and thank the officials and the Health Committee which has generally worked extremely well to achieve a very good result.Finally might I thank and acknowledge the submitters. There were powerful submissions from right around New Zealand. I remember specifically the Mayor of Timaru coming up and saying that in her community this was the No. 1 problem and that there were four or five shops dairies selling these substances to young people. They even texted young people when a new high came in and they would come to the back door and sell them.From Manurewa we had three submissions. People were absolutely outraged by the way that High Zone was carrying on business in that community next to a doctor’s surgery and next to a shopping centre where lots of young people went. Since those submissions I have been rung up by them to be told that they have just heard that a truckload or planeloads of substances that have come from Pakistan have landed in the wharves and at the airport in Auckland and they are basically loading up prior to the date that this bill is enacted. I think that is a great worry and it is a warning to our officials to make sure that they rigorously pursue the regulations associated with this bill. Certainly I would like to acknowledge Cam Calder for all the work that he has done along with Louisa Wall in supporting the Manurewa community and of course the individuals who have been devastated by their children being involved with cannabinoids and various other legal highs.In my own community Waiuku the supermarket owners have set up a campaign to reduce these substances and three of the four dairies have already spontaneously said: “No we’re not going to have anything to do with them.” and I think that is very good.I would like to comment on the basic purpose of the bill which indeed is to regulate the availability of psychoactive substances. It was one of the amendments of the select committee—and it was supported by submissions—to include: “to protect the health of and minimise harm to individuals who use psychoactive substances.” I think that was very much in line with the alcohol legislation and with other such legislation that we have in New Zealand and I applaud that.The expert advisory committee has some major tasks ahead and its working will be pivotal to this bill. The committee of course has to advise the authority. Its experts include those in pharmacology toxicology neuroscience medicine and several others. On this occasion it has included Bob Kerridge and he has been absolutely clear about his opposition to animal testing and I acknowledge that.The offences in this bill are very clear. For manufacturers they are high—up to 2 years’ jail and $500000. We had considerable debate about sanctions for possession for those under 18 and those over 18. Undoubtedly we also had advice from the police who were clear in what they wanted. I think we have come out with a good steer in this bill that infringement notices are there but that they will not be criminal particularly for young people. The police know well that they want to ensure that rehabilitation is the way to go rather than down the criminal track.I also want to just make note of the fact that indeed many places will have restrictions on sales not only shops grocery stores supermarkets and garages but in fact any other place or premise specified or described in the regulations. Already I understand there has been a suggestion that video stores may try to sell these things. More important was the select committee putting in clause 61A which relates that a territorial authority may have a policy relating to the sale of approved products within its districts which is similar to the alcohol legislation. I think that is very useful and will be welcomed in Manurewa.Finally I come to animal testing. Firstly I want to just comment on the advice from the Clerk of the House because it was very clear initially on 26 April 2013. Then later on 5 June the Clerk of the House confirmed the initial advice that amendments prohibiting testing psychoactive substances on animals were beyond the scope of the bill as the bill is about approval and licensing of the substances and not their testing. On 5 June the Office of the Clerk said it could advise that an amendment to preclude the use of information derived from animal testing of psychoactive substance products in support of any application for approval may be in order—may be in order.Kevin Hague: So all the submissions would have been relevant.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: I absolutely reject what Kevin Hague has said regarding the process and will not resile from the position that we took on the advice from the Clerk of the House.Secondly I come to the advice of the expert advisory committee. It came to its recommendations through a consensus process. It decided to come to “a consensus position … followed by a majority and minority report if consensus was not possible.” No minority report was needed and it was on the recommendations of the expert advisory committee that we came to an amendment that satisfied ostensibly all members of the select committee: “The advisory committee must ensure that any preclinical or clinical tests … that relate to a psychoactive product do not rely on any research testing or teaching that involves the use of an animal if suitable alternatives exist.” What is absolutely clear is what the expert advisory committee then came up with because it said this: “The Committee considers that it is not currently possible to completely prohibit animal testing and some animal testing may be necessary to provide data to support human research in order to allow the legislation to deliver its primary aim. The Committee recommends that some animal testing be permitted.” I think that is very very important to underscore.The final point is this: having looked very carefully at the international best-practice scientific community there is no question but that animal testing—though it should be minimised—is necessary. Undoubtedly rigorous testing is required to demonstrate minimal risk particularly when tens of thousands of users are young adults and adolescents. I very much hope that the Labour Party—given that its current leader Mr Shearer is also its science spokesman—will support an evidence-based approach and support his health team. Not to do so I believe would be utterly irresponsible.Just to end there is no question but that the major purpose of this bill is excellent. It is to regulate psychoactive substances and to protect the health of and minimise harm to individuals who use them in this country. Thank you.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South):I welcome the opportunity to speak at the second reading of this bill the Psychoactive Substances Bill. It is an important opportunity to talk about the absolute hope that is out there in the communities throughout New Zealand that this bill is going through the House as quickly as possible and that it will go some way to addressing some of the terrible harm that is being done in our community by the psychoactive substances that are prevalent. First of all I would like to just put on the record—if it has not been put on the recordalready—my congratulations to our spokesperson on this bill Iain Lees-Galloway who has done such a great job on pushing this forward. It was he who said very loudly last year that this change should be happening and should have happened sooner. In fact he said that we think it is ridiculous that we have basically been experimenting on our kids by allowing the substances to come on the shelf and then constantly chasing our tails trying to get them off the shelf again. That absolutely encapsulates just what has been happening in communities throughout New Zealand. Although I certainly do also acknowledge my colleague Louisa Wall who has been working extremely hard in her community in Manurewa there are many other communities for which this is a terrible scourge and in which there are terrible harms being done.I want to talk in my speech on this bill about some of the harm that has been done in my community in Dunedin but before I do that I would also like to just point out that it must be said that this Government has not taken the opportunity to completely overhaul the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. In 1975 many of the people who are standing in this House were not even born. Many things have actually moved on since then.Hon Trevor Mallard: Ha ha!CLARE CURRAN: Not all of the members of the House—some of them were probably sitting in this House in 1975 but only a very few. But certainly times have changed and as we know the composition of drugs has changed the way that they are being taken has changed and our ability to respond to drug abuse has changed. The only thing that has not changed is the law.I just want to say what has actually brought me to be speaking about this particular issue today. It was the community that came into my office earlier this year and raised this with me. There was a stream of people from the community talking about the absolute importance of making change happen and making change quickly and the impact that this problem has had on so many young people in the community. For example there was the woman who came into my office to offer me her support and give me her story on how she had been affected by taking these drugs. She had just come out of a psychiatric institution.Debate interrupted.