Hutchison Paul: Psychoactive Substances Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHutchison Paul: Psychoactive Substances Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 27 June 2013. Volume:691;Page:11405. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]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.