Ardern Shane: Psychoactive Substances Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeArdern Shane: Psychoactive Substances Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 02 July 2013. Volume:691;Page:11571. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country):It is a privilege and a pleasure to rise in the second reading of the Psychoactive Substances Bill. National is obviously sponsoring it and supporting it and wants to see it passed as soon as possible. I must acknowledge my colleagues from both sides of the House on the Health Committee and the great chairmanship of our very good chairman Dr Paul Hutchison on this particular issue. He actually brought quite a high degree of expertise to the debate given his medical background.When you look at something like the issue we are considering here or when the House considers something like the issue it is considering here—not you entirely Mr Assistant Speaker—there is a range of different arguments that you can put forward. The previous speaker who just resumed her seat Clare Curran brought forward a lot ofthe constituent-type issues that each and every one of us has experienced since this became a common thing. There was an example right in my own electorate in the Stratford area where my good colleague and friend the Hon Chester Borrows took it upon himself as a member of Parliament and a former police officer to visit a dairy and suggest to them that it was not in their best interests or certainly not in the best interests of the young people of our area for them to be selling this substance and they just said: “Well it’s legal so you know we make money from it.”I am reminded of a very heartfelt submission we received from the Mayor of the Ashburton area. She brought forward a very good submission in my opinion on the type of investment that some of the retailers of this product were making and the type of return they may get from it. All of that leads to a sort of discussion about why we do not just ban it—why we do not just pass a law and make it illegal. Well as most in the House will be aware when you put in place a total prohibition it seldom works. In fact if you look back in our history you will find that the King Country an area I represent in the late 1940s and early 1950s decided it was going to introduce a prohibition on alcohol. There were more moonshine distilleries and underground clandestine activities—Hon Trevor Mallard: My uncle ran the Manunui Club through the entire period.SHANE ARDERN: I am not surprised by that Mr Mallard. That does not surprise the House at all. In fact we have often wondered what type of psychoactive substance might have been employed. The reality is that prohibition seldom works. It tends to drive these types of activities underground and the end result is that you do not end up with the outcome that the community that wanted it banned in the first place might see as the ultimate outcome.With all of those issues and all of that as a problem for the Government—it is where the rubber actually does meet the road—the Health Committee listened to a substantial body of evidence that would suggest that if the onus of proof as to the safety or otherwise the lack of harm and the minimisation of harm from these substances could be placed on the manufacturers and could be properly policed and checked regularly by an expert panel which will be set up as a result of this then the outcome for this would likely be much better.Hon Trevor Mallard: Why does the member want to kill dogs?SHANE ARDERN: The member asks a very good question: “Why would the member want to kill dogs?”. Well there are some different individuals whom we would like to try these substances on. Dogs are not among them. The argument about animal welfare is one that I think most New Zealanders will be concerned about. The member needs to take a look at what the expert panel membership looks like. What he will find is that the head of the SPCA is on that panel. Does the member not understand that the SPCA is the organisation in New Zealand that along with a lot of concerned people looks after the welfare of animals? Why would you not take the advice of that body as opposed to someone baying from the other side of the House about the misuse of animals? If the member were to care to look at the substance of the bill he would find that even though that may possibly happen—there may be animals used in testing—all other testing systems will be exhausted before that happens.What the member probably needs to have a closer look at—and clearly has not to this point—is what the make-up is of the expert panel that will make recommendations on whether or not a substance is of minimum harm and what the likely chances are of animals being used in the testing process to determine that outcome. I do not know whether the member is suggesting because I would not even attempt to suggest that the member might suggest this that perhaps this experimentation should take place on young people as opposed to animals.Hon Trevor Mallard: No not at all.SHANE ARDERN: No. Well I would be surprised if the member had been suggesting that. But if without using animals you cannot test something to a point where you can establish that it has minimum harm then what would the member suggest happens?Hon Trevor Mallard: That it not be approved.SHANE ARDERN: That it not be approved so that the substance could actually then be made available without evidence that it is of minimum harm and it could be experimented on in society. How would the Minister of Health or the expert panel advising the Minister know whether the substance is of minimum harm without thorough testing?Hon Trevor Mallard: Just shocking—the member’s for the drug dealers.SHANE ARDERN: The member over there baying who suddenly has a new-found love for dogs or other animals as it may be may go and have a look at what the—Hon Trevor Mallard: I’ve been breeding dogs for 40 years not killing them for drug dealers.SHANE ARDERN: The member has been breeding dogs for 40 years. Well I have been farming for that long and I know that the member would not understand but farming requires humane treatment of animals. There are plenty of other people who have been training and breeding dogs for that long as well so he does not have a unique franchise on that. I have no doubt if that member has been breeding dogs for 40 years and lives in an urban environment there would have been several animal welfare issues in the activity that the member has been involved in because you cannot breed dogs in an urban environment without creating such an animal welfare environment. So there you go. The member has his own animal welfare expertise obviously and I would suggest that the member knows about as much about that as he knows about the bill that he is interrupting on. The reality is that this bill ends up in a situation where the best attempt at minimising risk to society to young people in particular has been achieved by going through the process that we have.There are a number of other issues that I care to touch on. One of them is the fact that there has for a long time been a range of very suspect processes in terms of the production of these products particularly party pills which are becoming more and more common. I think the previous member to speak Clare Curran who made a lot more sense than the one who is interrupting said that the incidence of hospital treatment and admission has substantially increased in the period since 2010 and there was a high degree of evidence to back that up. What has changed since 2010? Well what has changed is the number of organisations that are producing this product the amount of money they are able to make by selling it the number of outlets that exist that trade in it and the I guess societal acceptance that this is going to happen.Of course that is other than in the case that I mentioned earlier where society said: “We do not accept that this should happen in our area. We do not accept that our dairies should sell it.” and boycotted those premises. I understand that at least on the front they have stopped selling it. Whether or not it is still happening in a way that is not so public I am not sure. But certainly that is one way that those who feel so strongly about it could do something about it—that is of course they could boycott those who are making this available particularly to young people.This law or this bill once it becomes law will give some certainty to I guess the safety of legal products. It will place the cost of that burden of proof on those who produce it and it will help substantially in bringing about a change of behaviour particularly amongst the young who have been severely affected by it. I support the bill.