Dunne Peter: Psychoactive Substances Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDunne Peter: Psychoactive Substances Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 27 June 2013. Volume:691;Page:11394. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]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.