Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill

The House is in committee on the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill. Members, we come first to the debate on Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 16, Amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Part 1 deals with amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. So this is the part of the bill that gives the power of the director-general to effectively give a permit to any outfit that wants to offer drug-testing services. The director-general has to be satisfied that they can do so, and the director-general can attach any conditions to any permit that they give.

The effect of it, then, is that the person providing the service is protected from liability for prosecution. It also means that the host of an event in which a drug-testing service is carried out is also protected from liability for prosecution. So these provisions deal with that, which is the cornerstone, really, of the legislation, as we seek to provide these services and provide protection to young people going to festivals and the forthcoming summer season.

In speaking to Part 1, the first question I have for the Minister of Health and sponsor of the bill is that in the comments that he has just made and in the press release and all of the information that the public has is that the testing of these drugs—whether it be meth or ecstasy or whatever drug might be used—is going to be for music festivals. The problem I have in Part 1 is that there is no limit on where that drug testing were to occur. I can’t find the word “festival”, I can’t find the word “event”, I can’t find the word “concert”, or any of those there. So the only interpretation I can reasonably take is that the drug-testing services that are proposed in this part could be applied anywhere—for instance, I know in my home community, one of the scourges not just in Nelson but up and down New Zealand is the issue of P, meth use. And, yes, there will be those who argue that those who are buying and trading and use meth in communities all over New Zealand should—just as at a music concert or festival will have it tested to make sure that it doesn’t have impurities or that it’s pure meth or that it’s what people are selling—that, indeed, this part would provide that you could have such a testing service at the street corner, in the local area where gangs might be dealing with drugs, or any old where.

Now, it is quite a—

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: What’s the question?

Well, my question that I put to the member opposite—and it would be helpful if he could do it—is: does the bill limit the testing to that of music festivals and concerts? Because all of the public dialogue has been that that’s what the bill is about: making festivals and concerts safe. But that is not what the part says. The part makes no restriction to it being a particular event. It makes no restriction on it being for music festivals. So, effectively, Parliament is giving the authority for whether it be in Trafalgar Street, Nelson or in Cashel Street in Christchurch or in Gore or in any other part of the country—

💬 Hon Member: Rathbone Street, Whangārei.

—for drug testing services to be able to—even in Epsom, on Remuera Road—as I—

💬 David Seymour: That’s not in Epsom.

—read this bill, Mr Seymour—maybe Mr Seymour knows; I know he’s supporting the bill. Is it the intent that the drug-testing services would be limited to concerts and festivals or could they, in fact, be anywhere?

💬 David Seymour: Well, the tester would have to be authorised by the Director-General of Health.

So does Mr Seymour and the ACT Party apply the same philosophy that testing drugs at a concert or festival, but equally so it could occur in the community, and that, actually, if you believe in the philosophy behind this bill—and that is that you are going to make drug use safer in New Zealand for illegal substances like P or like ecstasy, which is probably the most common drug that is intended behind this bill, but it may well be cocaine or some other service—that it is not limited to simply a music festival or event? Actually, the part provides the authorisation by Parliament for that testing to occur anywhere, and that may well be the Government’s intent, that may well be what ACT is intending to support. But my question is: why should it? Do we really think we are going to make the use of drugs like P, like cocaine, like meth safer if we test it not just at music festivals and events but otherwise? And can they, please, if it intended to limit it to music festivals—why would your philosophy be different?

We know that drug harm actually is biggest in our communities not at music festivals, and if you were going to apply the logic that by testing these drugs you’re going to make them safer at festivals, then why would you not apply the same logic in our communities? And doesn’t, in fact, Part 1 of this bill make no mention of music festivals, no mention of concerts? In fact, it is a regime that provides for the authorisation of illegal drugs, drugs that this Parliament has determined are illegal, and for all of those to be tested and actually for them to be tested anywhere and there’s no restriction in this part of the bill that it should only be music festivals and such events.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I understood that the question that the member has taken a considerable amount of time to ask is whether or not the bill, on its face and in the language that it uses, limits the place where testing might be carried out just to festivals and music festivals and the like. The answer to that is clearly no, because there is no reference to festivals. But then the member might want to—look, my invitation to members opposite is to get into the real world and understand the context of this.

So we know that there are one or two outfits that do pill testing for the safety of consumers of them. One is KnowYourStuff and the other, as I understand it, is the New Zealand Drug Foundation—I stand to be corrected on that. They typically operate around festivals and events like that where young people gather. Their big risk that they face is the risk of prosecution when they are carrying out a service that is about trying to keep young people safe, people who choose to use substances that are mind altering, that can have an effect on the body, but mixed with others could cause even greater harm, and they want to keep them safe. We want to make sure that it is possible to have testing services available at events where young people gather, and this is a way of doing that.

Now, the member will also know, having studied the bill and seeing the media releases and what have you, that this is time limited, that this is self-repealing within 12 months. Because the other public announcements that have been made is that we do actually need to have a more considered examination of a law change that will do this on a permanent basis—I know members opposite have raised, in the first and second reading speeches, their concern about there being no select committee process and no examination—there will be a full parliamentary process when we come up with a long-term solution for this problem, and members can dust off their old speech notes that they’ve been using tonight, and run them all out again, but there will be a select committee examination and all of that.

So I just invite that member who’s resumed his seat, and other members, to look at the context in which this is happening and know that, in the practicality of the real world, it will be limited in application, because that is the only way in which these services will be carried out, in the foreseeable period contemplated by the bill.

Order! Order! Before I take the next speaker, I just want to remind the House that in the previous Parliament we had instituted a new way of running the committee where the member asking the question doesn’t necessarily need to take the full five minutes. In fact, asking a question succinctly then really requires the Minister, if they have a mind to, to provide an answer. So can I encourage the House: that was a system that was beginning to work quite well in the last Parliament, and could well work in this Parliament.

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?

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.

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.

Actually, I want to follow on from that with the Minister, because he’s been talking about particularly the requirement of who it will be that will be doing this testing, and I also want to touch on and ask him a question or two on the “what”. Perhaps we’ll wrap them up in this contribution.

On the “who”—I’ve just heard what he said—I’d make the point to him that we’re talking about, as we’ve heard in the committee, parents wanting an assurance that this is safe. And so surely it’s more than simply a question, I’m asking him, of competency; isn’t it also a question of good character? And is there a good-character requirement in this? Because we could envisage—and some may say, “Well, they’re far-fetched”; I doubt they actually are—scenarios where people with a background in and with a connection to drug offending, or those who may be engaged in those things, could be involved here. Not only could that colour their advice but potentially there’d be other ramifications from that, as well. And will there be, in terms of those people who will get, under new section 35DA in clause 10, the tick from the Director-General of Health, training? Because we’d want to know that actually there’s more than just a once over lightly. How will that competency be assessed? Because, you know, I come back to it: parents are wanting an assurance of safety here, and surely you want to make sure that information that’s going to them is of the best quality, isn’t coloured, isn’t too relaxed, but is serious, given we’re not just dealing with class C and B drugs; we’re dealing with class A drugs, as well, with serious harms.

To wrap this up in one go here, I’ll also ask the Minister not just about the “who” but about the “what”, which we get in new section 35DB, in clause 10—the functions of the service provider. I’m particularly interested in not just the information and harm reduction advice, which I’ve already touched on, but also this question of the outcome of the testing, and when the testers will return or dispose, and what advice they will be giving around that, and any sense he can give us of what that guidance will be from the director-general—if there’s anything in this bill, or if he envisages any further regulatory instrument to do that.

And I say that because if I take a simple perspective on this—I’m not in any way an expert on MDMA; I’ve done jury trials in that area, but they’re a long time ago. I’ve done a lot of jury trials in the area of cannabis, which was rather more common in the Bay of Plenty, but the issue with cannabis, of course, is we know that the THC can be at a low level or a very high level, and the buzz at the high level is much more dangerous. And so, for example, where impurities are found, will there be a list? Where compounds are found, will there be a list? Will there also be guidance on at what strengths, in a sense, the harm thresholds should be being applied here? I accept entirely these are not areas I have expertise in, but I would be interested in asking the Minister, given this bill is going through urgency without a parliamentary committee, what the story there will be.

And finally on all of that, in terms of that returning and disposing—even when they’re not disposed of and they are returned—if there aren’t going to be limitations for certain strengths, or buzzes, if you like, will it nevertheless be the case that there will be warnings for the ecstasy or other drugs in those? I really want to get some assurance from the Minister on those matters.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member for his questions. I understand his first question related to who is doing the testing, and how that can be determined or controlled, and he raised the particular question about the good-character nature of the tester. I again refer the member to clause 10 of the bill and the proposed section 35DA. Again, when the director-general comes to appoint drug- and substance-checking service providers, the director-general has to be sure that this is an output or a person who can carry out the functions provided for in new section 35DB in clause 10. I think the member can be sure, and the committee can be sure, the director-general will want to know that this is someone who has the means, the capability, and the qualifications to carry out substance testing. And, in fact, if you look at proposed section 35DB(1)(b), one of the things that the drug-testing service has to do is to “ascertain the composition and likely identity of the drug”. So they’re going to have the means, the equipment, the chemicals—whatever—to carry out that function.

So the director-general, in appointing someone to that role, has to be sure that they can do it. So this is not going to be any old mug off the street waltzing up their application to the director-general and saying, “I’ll do it,” and thinking they’re in for a good time. These are going to be competent, qualified people who do the job, as, indeed, the people who do it for KnowYourStuffNZ are. So I think the scheme of the bill gives the reassurance that this is going to provide a level of safety and therefore assurance to parents of young people who might be availing themselves of these sorts of services.

The member raised questions about what the owner of the substance who surrenders it for testing will be told. Well, again, the scheme of the bill makes it clear: they will be given information and harm reduction advice. So they will be told regardless: “You might want to use this; it might be your choice; do you know what this might do?” Once it’s been tested, they will then be given advice on the composition and likely identity of it, and, again, it’s an opportunity for the drug checker to give advice on ingestion of that particular substance. And then there’s a range of other things that the tester can do, which also includes that the substance provided for testing, if the person who’s provided it doesn’t want it any more, is for the drug-testing service to dispose of. So the dangers that I think the member is raising, quite legitimately, are, I think, satisfactorily covered off in the full scheme of the bill, as laid out, particularly, in clause 10 of it.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to take a call in the committee stage on the Drug and Substance Checking Legislation Bill. I’ve got a couple of questions in regards to how this bill is going to work. My first question is around how a young person who’s attending some festival somewhere, when they turn up to the festival and someone’s there saying, “I’m going to test your drugs”, how to know that they have been certified under clause 10, new section 35DA. The ministry has to have a website which lists the people who have been certified, but there’s no information required—from what I can see—for the service provider to actually put it in front of that young person their certification, the fact that they have been certified by the Director-General of Health. How are they going to know that this person has been given the lawful authority to do this drug testing and that they are doing it in accordance with the law and therefore meeting the standards and the conditions imposed upon them by the Director-General of Health?

Again, the director-general, in giving somebody this permit to provide drug-checking services, can also specify reasonable terms and conditions of that appointment. My expectation is that one of the conditions will be that the person who was given the permit to carry out drug-testing services must display the permit authority from the director-general. So that is covered off in the bill; it is there and it allows, therefore, that person to carry out that testing.

Again, when we think about the practical reality, the situation that we are now in, we know that there are outfits—of one at least, called KnowYourStuff, that has been around for a while, is well known to people, has an established track record of carrying out drug-treatment services. They will, no doubt—if given the authority to do so under this legislation—be able to establish themselves in a relevant event, or be known at the event, or display their permit, as a trusted provider of these services. That is what the bill provides for.

Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d just like to ask a little bit about clause 19, which contemplates somebody who is operating a pill-testing site, tests drugs, and returns them to a person. Of course, it contemplates that they’ll give it back, but what if—

Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. We are debating Part 1 at the moment. Part 1 contains clauses 1 to 16. The member was addressing clause 19.

I want to speak to the amendment that’s been moved in my name and tabled, because I think it’s important, particularly when we are being asked to rush legislation through the Parliament, that we keep it to the very narrow purpose that has been publicly stated. And if you look at the press release in the Minister’s name, if you look at both newspaper articles and media coverage, this bill is meant to be all about providing for drug- and substance-checking services specifically for summer music festivals or concerts; yet this very part provides no such limitation. It says that the drug-testing service could be provided on Trafalgar Street on any day of the week or any other part of New Zealand.

The reason I’m concerned is because when I hear the advocate for this bill, Chlöe Swarbrick of the Green Party, she makes absolutely plain that she, indeed, believes that this drug-testing service should be equally available for the P dealer or the meth dealer or the cocaine dealer that are selling drugs in our communities every day of the week and not just at music festivals and concerts. And so I seek the support of the committee for an amendment that ensures the bill only does what we say it would do, and that is that this is solely a narrow bill that is going to provide for the testing of drugs at music festivals and concerts. Shouldn’t we put in the legislation what we said?

If that is the area that the Government and the parties that are supporting it, around specifically providing that drug-testing service, where there may be some level of risk, let’s do as we say and constrain Part 1 specifically to the issue of providing music festivals or concerts. Or is this really a Trojan Horse? Is this really about providing a far wider drug-testing service?

💬 David Seymour: He’s on to them.

Well, I’d be interested, does the ACT Party—is it your party’s intent that for the dealer of cocaine or meth or ecstasy in Auckland, Nelson, Christchurch, Dunedin—if you accept the logic that drug-testing services make things safer at the music festival, do you accept the logic of the Green Party that equally it would make it safer if the drugs that are purchased anywhere else is also tested for impurities?

💬 David Seymour: Where could this informed choice thing go?

Well, indeed, I would fear to know how liberal that party might go. But I’m just old fashioned and say that we should do as we say. If the press release says it’s about music festivals and concerts, if the members opposite in every one of their speeches says it’s about solely providing this service at music festivals and concerts, the explanatory note of the bill specifically says it’s about providing testing at festival venues and for festival organisers, well, if that’s what we’re saying publicly, let’s do that with the law. Let’s limit the testing service to those specific music festivals or concerts where people are concerned that there is risk.

So I invite the Government, who has used those specific phrases in its press releases and its comments and the explanatory note, and the other parties, who have all referred to that being a concern, I invite them to support my amendment to clause 35DJ that says that a service provider will be limited to providing that service at such music festivals or concerts. And if members from the ACT Party or Labour or the Greens are not going to support that amendment in my name, could they please provide an explanation as to why they want the broader testing service available?

My view is that this country has a serious problem with drugs like meth, not just at music festivals, actually right through our country, that we should not be providing the testing service for the general dealing in those drugs, that we should limit it solely to those music festival events, and I seek the support of the House for the amendment in my name that does just that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a simple question to the Minister in the chair. The regulatory impact statement says Victoria University has conducted research into drug-checking services and that the Ministry of Health has been provided with interim results. What are those results with respect to the actions of the clauses in Part 1, please?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the member for his question. Look, it would be desirable if the research were released fully and properly. As I understand it, it is expected to be released in the next couple of weeks, but the interim results of that research, I am advised, led to the conclusion that two-thirds of people using drug-checking services at festivals or events changed their behaviour as a consequence—either didn’t consume the substance that they had submitted for testing, modified their consumption of the substance for testing, or in a subsequent period changed their drug-consumption habit.

I have two questions also on Part 2, primarily—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Part 1.

Part 1, I’m sorry, Minister Little—new section 35DD, in clause 10, “Supplying or surrendering controlled drug to service provider”, an individual may supply or surrender the control drug to the service provider. My question on this is a point David Seymour made, which is that, of course, it is still an offence in this land to possess an illicit drug within the classifications of the Misuse of Drugs Act, and the service provider, of course, is immune, has immunity through this part. What, though, about the individual who is supplying or surrendering? Is there, for example, a safe space for them? If they are there, just about to hand those over, is there any guidance or anything there to stop police from simply arresting them at that point in time? Because, as the Minister knows, we don’t agree with the bill, but that would seem a ridiculous proposition and against the spirit of this. So it’s a question about the safe space or how that will work.

Secondly, and relatedly—and I confess, if I’ve got this wrong, that is that—but I don’t see in Part 1, where I think it would logically flow, any provision about the disposal of the drugs. I’m wanting to understand that, because it seems to me, again—and the Minister, effectively, by his omission made clear—that, whilst it’s up to the director-general, it’s not necessarily the case that there’d be good character requirements around the service providers. One could envisage a bad egg who is approved and who slips through this having a defence a week later, three weeks later, with that big bucket of—

💬 Hon Member: Drugs.

—drugs surrendered to him or her. I was thinking of the avocados in my kitchen, frankly, that were in the bucket, but they don’t need testing. But those pills, which were, in fact, for the purpose of something else, obviously illegal purposes—surely there should be, and I ask is there, or, if there isn’t, what is his view on what the disposal situation should be?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank Mr Bridges for his questions. Can I just deal with his last one first, which was to do with disposal of drugs or substances provided to the drug checker for checking. So if we have a look at proposed section 35DB, in clause 10, which lists as the functions of the service provider, it includes not only in paragraph (e) disposing of any sample of a controlled drug or substance used in testing, but in paragraph (f) disposing of or arranging for the disposal of any drug or substance surrendered by any individual for disposal.

So one can anticipate there’ll be situations where the drug checker says to the person, “You don’t really want this. This is so bad. It’ll do you so much harm.” And the person says, “You know what? You’re right. I’m going to give it to you. Can you dispose of it and I’ll go off and have a drug-free enjoyable period at my concert, listening to Roger Whittaker.”—or whatever concert it is that I’m at. And then if we have a look at proposed section 35DH, in clause 10, which are the protections from liabilities of the service provider, it says “An employee or a volunteer of a service provider is not liable for anything they do or fail to do in the course of the performance or intended performance of the service provider’s functions”, unless it was shown to act in bad faith. So they’re protected from liability for disposal of it, and they will therefore dispose of it.

Going back to the first question I think the member was raising, which was that point in time in which the possessor of the drug or substance waltzes up to the place where they’re going to get checked and all the time committing a criminal offence in possessing it, then hands it over. There’s that little point in time—or, in fact, there’s a point in time when, having handed it over, they’re no longer in possession, therefore not committing a criminal offence anymore; the drug checker has it in their possession, protected from criminal offence under this bill. And so I have to say in the early drafts there was consideration given to some sort of protection for the possessor of it, of the substance or drug, but it was difficult to define at what point that should sort of stop and start. The reality is we are not stopping people who possess drugs or substances from being criminally liable; they are. They remain that. It’s only if they’re carrying out testing services they’re free or if they’re the controller of the premises or the place where it happens they are protected from liability for criminal prosecution.

So the person who possesses it then falls back to the changes to the Misuse of Drugs Act we made last year, which is to give a signal about the exercise of prosecutorial discretion to the police. So the police might stand there and see all this happening, but the police know that, when they come to exercise their discretion, if the only criminal offence they see committed is possession of the drug, then they’re actually going to have to fall back on a health referral anyway. So the scheme in total, I think, makes sense for what we’re trying to achieve, which is knowing there are people who have illicit substances in circumstances where they have bought an illicit substance, don’t really know what it is, know there’s a risk, and get it tested—we want that person, if the police are concerned about them, to have a health referral, not to be treated through the criminal justice system, and this helps to achieve that.

Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. I refer briefly to the amendment on the Table in the name of Dr Nick Smith, which would, as he tells us, restrict the testing to be done at music festivals. We’re listening—ACT is listening—but we would like Dr Smith to tell the committee how a music festival will be defined. Will there be a required level of musicality or festivity in his amendments, and how will that be enforced? Because it could be quite useful if those things were indeed measurable and practical to measure. Perhaps Dr Smith would even give a demonstration of the musicality and festivity required to the committee, but I suspect it’s going to be difficult for us to support that.

I’d also like to ask the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, about new section 35DH, the amendments that would say, “An employee or a volunteer of a service provider is not liable for anything they do or fail to do in the course of the performance”. In the scenario where some drugs are tested and it turns out they’re bad and somebody is harmed by taking them but the service provider has in some way failed in their duty, are they liable under the Health and Safety at Work Act? Because surely they’re a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU). Now, this leads to an interesting question: is there a carve-out? Because a lot of people up and down this country would love a carve-out from the liabilities of the Health and Safety at Work Act. Being a PCBU, if you’re a director, if you’re somebody on one of these service providers, if you’re on the board of KnowYourStuffNZ, you’d want to know that you are not going to be liable for some kid that takes some drugs. You tell them—you don’t communicate properly, whatever, and they harm themselves—have you taken all reasonably practicable steps? Because that’s the bar that people operating farms and businesses up and down this country face.

So, you know, we’ve got to be very careful here. It may well be that, with regard to workplace health and safety, service providers like KnowYourStuffNZ are already operating in that kind of legal grey area and this legislation will actually have no effect on the situation. If that’s the case, I don’t think we should concern ourselves with it tonight, but on the other hand, you’d want to be pretty sure—and I know the Minister in the chair has only recently become the Minister of Health. He’s got a very, very rich background in labour relations and workplace health and safety; he’s in a very good position to address this, and I’m sure there will be people who would very much like to have some reassurance about how the new section 35DH, particularly subsection (1) of that new section, is going to interact with the laws that apply to people up and down this country when they are operating a business as a person conducting a business or undertaking—you know, what sorts of rules apply to them, and does this section actually create a carve-out from the Health and Safety at Work Act, because if that’s the case, well, this is something the ACT Party wholeheartedly supports. There’d be a wide range of people—employers and people in organisations, rugby clubs, up and down this country—who would love to know that Parliament can give them such an exemption. But certainly, to date, it seemed very unusual—in fact, unprecedented—that that has been allowed to happen.

So I hope that the Minister, drawing on the expertise that he has and has built up over many decades in his law practice and as a Minister in the previous Government and as a member of this House, will be able to give some clarity, because I know that there’ll be people who are very much in favour of this bill, people who would otherwise be operators, who would actually really, really like to be able to get some clarity. I think, particularly in a scenario where there is the absence of a regulatory impact statement, where there is the absence of a select committee process with submissions and so on, and where all of this is going to happen very, very fast with guidelines set out by the Director-General of Health—given all of that, it would be very, very helpful if the Minister could rise to his feet and give clarification about the interaction between the Health and Safety at Work Act on the one hand and this legislation before us tonight on the other.

Now, I don’t know what’s happening, Madam Chair—I was fairly certain that at 10  o’clock the committee would actually rise, but it looks like we’re going into extra time, and I’m looking forward to hearing what the Minister has to say all night long.

Thank you for that last comment around the procedures around the end of play for the day. The Standing Orders have changed for this Parliament and we do have a five-minute window on either side to allow members to make a contribution. So, members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee will resume at 9 a.m. tomorrow. Thank you.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 10.03 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)