Browning Steffan: Psychoactive Substances Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBrowning Steffan: Psychoactive Substances Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 09 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:11789. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]STEFFAN BROWNING (Green):I was really concerned to hear some of that rhetoric from the other side of the Chamber and it went through all three speakers. Whether it is a mouse a guinea pig or as some call it a puppy-dog no animal needs to be tested under the testing for these psychoactive drugs. If the Health Committee had actually listened to those submitters—the ones whom we heard only because we needed to because they were being let down totally by the chair of the committee—those members would not even be differentiating between the size of animals; they would be saying: “No animal testing.”Earlier we heard from Dr Paul Hutchison talking about science and suggesting that the Green Party did not understand science or that it was particularly selective. He insinuated that we had it all wrong regarding the science around this testing. It is quite the contrary. Again if he had listened and maybe even if he had read the report from the committee that the Green Party set up to hear those submitters and he had then gone through the submissions—because of course he had access to them—he would have had no grounds to be saying that. It is science-based and the science says that you do not need to animal test at all.Shane Ardern: Well then it won’t happen Steffan. If that’s the case it won’t happen.STEFFAN BROWNING: Well I do not have total confidence in the Psychoactive Substances Expert Advisory Committee. We can have hope but do not have any absolute confidence or proof. I was looking through the bill and thinking where does it give me confidence that it will come out really certain in that? Maybe it is lost in Supplementary Order Paper 268. But I did feel very assured by Associate Minister of Health Todd McClay who was very helpful in saying that effectively when a suitable alternative exists there will not be animal testing. He was very very adamant about that. That is heavily on record and I appreciate that. In fact I do not think there will be any excuse for the Psychoactive Substances Expert Advisory Committee to ever allow animal testing. If it did it would be in direct contradiction of the science that is available.On that basis I would suggest that the parties or members who are prevaricating around Mojo Mathers’ Supplementary Order Paper 260 should reconsider. There is time—it has not come up. There is time to reconsider. I am really disappointed in the parties that may be sitting on the fence or those that are totally opposed and I suggest that they quickly reconsider and do the honourable thing because as we have said this bill is potentially a world first in terms of what it is doing around psychoactive substances but it would be even better if that Supplementary Order Paper was given the nod.I found it I suppose a privilege to hear the submissions from those people who had put them together very very professionally. They had put together very very good evidence but they had been disadvantaged. They had been left out of the democratic process. In fact I think about the time that they had put in and then they had the rug pulled out from under them because of what I would suggest is the National Government looking at the costs and thinking: “Have we got mates in there who are going to actually end up having to pay a little bit more”—in fact a reasonable bit more—“to do testing that is not on animals?”. Instead we can do the cheap one and effectively torture some animals to get the effective protection.If a drug is to be allowed—and it will be allowed only if it passes certain tests—is cost really the issue here? I would suggest that it is not. I would suggest that it should not be about the cost; it should be about the ethics and this bill can really get down into that. We are concerned about our young people. We do not want young people to be admitted to hospitals with psychotic episodes and to have their lives destroyed—of course we do not. So it is not an either/or here; it is about both. We can have an ethical result in terms of our young people and we can have an ethical result in terms of animal welfare.I will speak further on the bill but I implore those parties and members who are at the moment prevaricating about or opposing at the moment that Supplementary Order Paper to reconsider because this could be a wonderful day. Thank you.