Seymour David; Little AndrewDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. I sincerely hope that your reminder to the committee about the need or the lack of need to fill the complete five minutes was in no way a reflection on the contribution of Dr Nick Smith because I thought that what he said was well and truly worthy of taking up five minutes. It was a very good contribution that we're very grateful to have heard.But I would like to ask a question of the Minister because in the absence of a regulatory impact statement and a select committee examination of this bill I think that there are things that people will wish to know. For instance if we take clause 8 which appears to amend section 12 it says It is not an offence against subsection (1) for a person to permit any premises to be used by a drug and substance checking service provider" for the purpose that's defined later in the bill. Now that's for a person to permit any premises so I assume the intention is that that's the person that owns the premise or at least has control of it—has leased or rented perhaps a vineyard in Marlborough where they're doing a festival. I guess the question is: what if it was say a gang? Would they be able to do it? Would they be in any way excluded? It does say any person and any premise.Just to sort of tease out what this means for people let's say for instance a great place where I've spent some great nights is the Powerstation on Mount Eden Road. That is a place where young people gather. It's private property. It's owned by some very passionate business people. I wonder if they would be able to permit a drug-testing service to be used there at the Powerstation. Now I don't have a particular problem with that. I believe in the principle of the bill and I think a lot of the parents in that part of our country just the same as parents up and down New Zealand would want this kind of security and information to be available. But it's worth just clarifying. It could be for instance the Powerstation. Then the next question I'd ask is OK just for total clarity for people interested in this bill it's still illegal to possess those substances. You know it's still illegal to have illegal drugs by definition at that location or any other venue. All this bill is doing is saying that it's not illegal for the property owners for the venders of the Powerstation to allow a pill-testing service to operate on their site. Now I think I've got this right but I think there's a reason for this committee stage and it's important that we actually tease out what exactly the legislation says and what the meanings of it are in that case and perhaps some of the unintended consequences. So to wrap up the question is: could this be for instance a music venue in central Auckland—number one. Will all of the other laws about drugs continue to be enforced at that venue for possession and supply and so on is question number two. I guess question number three is: what if actually that venue—not so far from the Powerstation in the north of Mount Eden is a very well-known gang patch that I won't name because I don't want to get myself in any trouble. Is there any—Hon Simon Bridges: Why? Are you on the CCTV?DAVID SEYMOUR: Well you never know. There's no application. I've been delivering my pamphlets outside and they could have them pointing out there couldn't they Simon Bridges? You are in a boisterous mood tonight Mr Bridges. I hope the member hasn't been taking anything himself!And what about people that are involved in organised crime? Is there anything in the bill that excludes them from being involved in pill testing? Perhaps with somebody who was on the police gang list is there any way that they would be excluded from being engaged in a pill-testing business. I think those are some of the questions that people at home would like to be clarified as they watch this legislation go through.Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you to that member for his questions. He's referred to clause 8 and the proposed amendment to section 12 and he rightly points to the words "person to permit … premises". So this relates to the person in control of premises—whether the owner or the lessee or someone with a licence in charge of the premises or in charge of the event. They will be the person who is entitled to I guess the protection of this particular law.But in terms of the dangers that he raises—what about other drug laws and what if a venue was not just a music venue but gang headquarters—I refer the member to clause 10 of the bill in particular the proposed section 35DA of the Misuse of Drugs Act and also proposed section 35DB which sets out the functions of the service provider. Now in terms of proposed section 35DA in clause 10 the director-general has to give a permit. The director-general appoints the drug service provider. I think it follows that the director-general in making that appointment has to be sure that the person who they're giving the permit to can perform the functions set out in section 35DB. The director-general is not going to appoint somebody who is incapable of performing those functions. So there's going to have to be a level of competency and capability required.The other thing the director-general can do is specify reasonable terms and conditions of an appointment. It is well within the powers of the director-general to say "Well I'm going to allow you to do this and by permitting you to do this you are protected from criminal liability but to limit that I'm going to make sure that when you are discharging these services they are at appropriate events or venues." The director-general has it in their power to define that and I expect probably will. That contains the extent to which these services will be provided. If the venue was a gang headquarters the director-general might ask the applicant for the permit and say "Well where do you propose to conduct these services?" If it's going to be at gang premises I expect the director-general—not I expect; I'm almost certain that the director-general—will decline to grant the permit. So I think there are in the scheme of the bill in total sufficient safeguards that mean that the risk of drug-testing services popping up all over the place including at a gang headquarters is so minimal—so negligible—as to be virtually zero."