 If you are watching live at home, please send your questions into hashtag pathway to reform and we will get those to the politicians. If I could just start, Ian Lee's Galloway, is Labour still committed to a scientific approach to legal highs via the regulation provided under the Psychoactive Substances Act? Or will the reactive moves by some councils to ban retailers using bylaws? Is that going to shake your resolve at all? No, it doesn't shake our resolve. It's a challenge and it's one that we have to... I find that as I go around the country and if I actually get a chance to sit down with councillors and talk them through what the select committee's thinking was, what Parliament's thinking was, and you actually start to see eye to eye quite quickly. And that was the problem that local government didn't get the opportunity to participate in the development of the legislation. So they felt left out. They then got, given this job of regulating within their own areas, and sort of said, well, where on earth did this come from? And how are we supposed to deal with our ratepayers saying we want them banned? So that just is proof that democracy has to be done properly and you actually have to consult with everybody who's being affected. We absolutely support the scientific approach, but as I said, we think there are other components that have to go around that legislation to make sure that it works properly. And what are some of those components? Well, one thing is I've put a member's bill into the ballot. It's a tiny thing, but that's the nature of member's bills, unfortunately, to give the Health Promotion Agency the ability to work with psychoactives. At the moment they're very tightly mandated on what they can do. Most of their work is focused on alcohol. And so what it would do is it would give the Health Promotion Agency both the mandate to do research, to provide education. I heard Annette talk about education. So these are the guys who are behind the Ghost Chips ad and the No More Busies for You ad. So these folks are good at providing education and harm reduction information in a way that is easily consumed by the people it's targeted at. And so if they were working in psychoactives, they would be actually providing, they'd be able to support the effort to provide the information that people who are potentially going to use psychoactives need to use them in a low risk, low harm fashion. The other thing I would do for all the importers, manufacturers and retailers in the room is charge a levy against the importers, the retailers and manufacturers to fund the Health Promotion Agency. It's exactly what we do with alcohol. It's a good system that works well and I see no reason why we shouldn't use it on psychoactives as well. Just a final question. The structure of the Act, the safeguards, do you think that alcohol or tobacco would be able to pass the very stringent levels that you've set for them? I think they would struggle. And there will always be a special place in our hearts for alcohol and tobacco. I agree with Kevin. We need a more coherent model than what we have at the moment. We have low risk substances that are illegal and we've got high risk substances that are illegal and if that sounds confusing it's because it is. We do need a more coherent approach but the fact is that alcohol and tobacco I suppose that ship has sailed and I guess with psychoactive substances and with the prohibited drugs we have an opportunity to do it way, way better than we did with alcohol and tobacco. Kevin, we seem to have a media in New Zealand that's simply too immature to discuss cannabis policy like adults. Is this why the Greens seem reluctant to push for reform? I mean how serious would the Greens be in government to push for more reform on drugs? Well of course I would never criticise the news media bomber. Is that clear? I'm always bemused and frustrated by that conversation which I have a lot I have to say on Facebook. And principally from people who think that the way to get reform is for the Green Party to make a lot of noise about the issue. Well you know if I have any specialisation it is in the area of political strategy and making a lot of noise about an issue occasionally is precisely the right thing to do. But very often it's not the right thing to do and so what I think is most important is actually figuring out the strategy that will get us to the point that we need to bear. And so those issues that I spoke about, the use of the psychoactive substances act as the kind of platform for developing this framework I'm talking about. Getting all of the law reform organisations on the same page, I can't stress enough how important that is because if we have multiple different organisations and they're all actually saying somewhat different things that makes it very easy for reluctant governments to do nothing because they can say well you're telling me this is the most important thing but I had organisation EX in my office just yesterday saying I needed to do something different. So actually figuring out the strategy that will achieve the law reform that is the most important thing and if when we work out the strategy that will work very high profile advocacy is going to be an important part of that strategy that's what we'll do. But so what I'm saying is horses for courses and right now we are engaged in the things that we know will actually make positive progress towards the kind of law reform that we're talking about. How much of a bottom line is it for the Greens in coalition with Ian over here? I mean are you going to push it hard to have drug reform? Will Labour be open to that or is it something that will just drop off the ledger when you have to actually start governing? Yeah, we don't know. There's the honest and brief answer. We did not go into the last election with any bottom lines at all, none at all. So as it turned out we also didn't go into any negotiation with potential government partners but that's going to be different this time and both Ian and Annette are going to be around the table with us I'm sure. But our basic approach is okay let's look to find the areas of common ground and build on those. There will be issues that we want to talk about first and those will be the ones that we campaign on and most vigorously and last time it was Jobs, Rivers, Kids. Many of you will remember the ads. It's likely to be something similar again this time around. So those are the things we'll be talking about first but then after that we are keen to explore all of the areas where we can find common ground with our potential coalition partners. That sounds like it's going to include this. Medicinal cannabis or full decriminalisation. What do you think is most likely? There was a real chance for medicinal cannabis that only missed out by a short amount of votes. Is that something that you would see as a more doable process than full decriminalisation? I think it's actually quite hard to read because I think in many places around the world the medicinal cannabis debate has effectively been a proxy for decriminalisation. And I think what has changed in the last year is that the landscape for proper drug law reform actually is now really taking shape very quickly. So I would have said definitely medicinal, easier to achieve earlier on. Actually I'm not sure now but we do have an opportunity to test that. So there is a petition at the Health Select Committee from William Ray who's here today, good on William, around implementing the law commission's recommendations on medicinal cannabis. And so we will get an opportunity to see how far the other parties are prepared to push that issue. Annette, finally to you. I just want to touch on something that you said in your opening speech. According to JustSpeak, the proportion of young Māori being caught with drugs that leads on to a prosecution has doubled between 1994 and 2011. Has drug policy failed Māori? I think the criminal justice system has failed Māori and drug policy is a fundamental foundation of that. Incarceration rates since 1980 have doubled at any muster level in our prison system at the moment. There's 8,000 to 8,800 people. When I started in law there was never more than 4,000 to 4,400 people. So in the time that I've been practicing as a lawyer, we've doubled the prison numbers. We've created privatisation of prisons and the war on drugs has filled those prison beds. So the reality for us in Mana is that economic apartheid injustice is linked to that fact. And we must find a total approach that minimises that and that is why we are guided by the health first. Issues that the law commission have identified but much more fundamentally must be linked to a wider criminal justice strategy that does not discriminate against Māori and Pacific Island. I think I'll open it up to the floor question over here. Thanks. I'm Richard Good, the Vice President of the Aotearoa Legalised Cannabis Party. I should probably be up on the stage on the empty seat but we're not in Parliament yet so I'll content myself with a question from the floor. And the question is, and Kevin has already touched on this, but why are we so far behind the rest of the world on the medical cannabis issue? And what are you going to do about it? Because I'm happy to wait a few years until I can legally smoke cannabis and I've got AB Fubanaka and PB22 in the interim. But there are patients out there who need their medicine and they can't legally get it and I think we should do something about this urgently. So what are you going to do? I think the answer to why are we so far behind is because for some reason in New Zealand as it has been elsewhere it's been seen as a proxy for decriminalisation or legalisation. And we often hear at the select committee from the Ministry of Health, well the government has no plans to legalise the recreational use of cannabis so we don't want to go anywhere near medicinal cannabis. Meanwhile of course we have medicinal use of opiates and there's no plan to legalise the recreational use of opiates either. And so we get these arguments that just actually don't make any sense. And I suppose over the years there has been a nervousness from politicians to do anything that looks like liberalisation. And if we could do a better job of separating the issue of recreational and medicinal use and actually pursue medicinal use for that purpose, not as a proxy for recreational use, then I think we would get a lot further. Kevin, is it right that cancer sufferers and people with AIDS or terminal illness seen by the system as criminals if they use medicinal cannabis? Is it something we want in New Zealand? No, it's not. We think medicinal cannabis ought to be available. We had a bill that we put to the parliament in 2009 to achieve that and we didn't have the numbers. At this point we still don't have the numbers. So at this point it's set of X and set of X that you will pay for yourself because there is no subsidy on it. So one of the areas we're looking at is it possible to bring in a subsidy on set of X as an interim step. But fundamentally the reform doesn't come until we can command a majority in the House and we can't yet. Annette is one of the reasons why we haven't made any moves on this because mainly the people who are falling victim criminally are Māori in Pacific Island. They don't have the voice do they? Yeah, I think it's a combination effect as my colleagues here have identified the key. But the disenfranchises don't vote. And Paul Quinn, when he was in for the National Party, refused the ability for jailed prisoners to vote. That would have been a good 8,800 votes. My electorate for me. But that's the reality is that those that are most impacted upon have actually been discriminated against into human rights terms. So I wouldn't say it's been a targeted racist policy, but the consequences of it has seen disenfranchisement of those that would seek both medicinal marijuana legislated for and recreational use dealt with in an appropriate way. Most users that I contact with every day see health issues arising from overuse. Most of them don't get released conditions from jail to deal with those problems unless there's a special requirement at the parole board. Most of them don't advocate for themselves in it, so it's a vicious circle for them if they do have drug problems. If you are watching this at home and you want to send through questions, hashtag pathway to reform. More from the floor. All questions over here from the off the net. No. Questions, hands up. Anyone have any questions? The National Party aren't here for me to ask them this question, so I'll ask you guys. I see the psychoactives bill as the result of, you know, the proliferation of synthetic cannabinoids as a result of the prohibition of cannabis. What are the political arguments for maintaining the status quo as it is now for not regulating, as say, Colorado have, with a model which, you know, provides employment at a retail and a, you know, bureaucratic regulation level, enormous tax revenue. What are the, what are their arguments exactly? I haven't really been able to come across any of that. Have any of you, I mean, Judith's obviously pretty busy, Judith Collins having late night secret dinners with people, but beyond that, has she actually come up with any reason why? I guess it's a belief that prohibition reduces harm. And we could unpick that argument until the cows come home, I'm sure. Maybe the cows with milk, Judith would be keen on milk. I didn't mean to do that, I'm sorry. So, I suppose, what's also useful about prohibition, and if I may, I'm sorry, use your question to go off on the tangent. What's useful about prohibition is it sweeps the problem under the carpet. We can't see how many people are using drugs, whether they're using drugs responsibly, or whether they've got an addiction, or they've got a problem, or there are social issues that go with their drug use. We just can't see it, and that's kind of comfortable, because we don't have to worry about it then. One of the interesting things about what's happened since the Psychoactive Substances Act has come into force is that because we've reduced the number of outlets, we can now really see how much drug use is going on in our communities. And a lot of people have replaced natural cannabis with synthetic cannabis. They're at more risk as a result, which is interesting, but we can see it. And so that's kind of a double-edged sword. On one hand, a lot of people see it as something that's really ugly, because they see a lot of social problems going with it. But the other thing is we can now actually respond to the problems associated with drug misuse and drug abuse, because we can actually see it happening and we can see the extent of it. Prohibition is very comfortable because we can just pretend there is no problem. And by bringing the problem out into the open, we now have to decide what we do about it. And that's a challenge for politicians. Can I just say one thing as well? You'd like to think probably that politicians will form policy on the basis of rational analysis. And an objective opinion about what they think to be in the best interests of the country. Of course, that's what the Green Party does. But for some other parties, if you think about it, every single National Party MP voted against our Med Pop Bill. So why did they do that? It's because their approach to politics is instead to say, what do our voters and the voters who currently don't vote for us but might, they think about this issue. So they're looking not at rational analysis, not at New Zealanders' opinions, but the opinions of a particular group in society. And I guess the war on drugs rhetoric has been pretty deeply ingrained for quite some time. So it's not surprising that there is a constituency for politics based on that rhetoric. And that's what we see. I'd like to second-guess the National Party, but it's a nightmare to even go there. Can I say that prohibition is driven quite often as a mother of children by fear. The fear is that we sometimes impose adult policies without good consideration of what those policies may be for those that have yet to form informed outcomes and judgments. So I think at the end of the day, some of the politicians I've spoken to, when you ask them, that's their biggest concern, is that we're going to increase the suicide rate amongst young men and women. That if we have carte blanche open access to whether it's legal highs or marijuana, that's going to have social ills that we are all prepared for. And I think that's why for us in mana, education and health prevention is the answer, not fear. And to achieve that, it requires our young people having this available to them and that of a civic responsibility education program in schools. Question over there. I guess this question is directed to the gentleman on the panel because we have Greens and Labour Party in Australia. Unfortunately, we don't have your party represented yet. But can I just ask, if Australia was going down the same road as New Zealand, the mechanics of gravity and all that sort of stuff would probably come into effect, and it would be a lot easier for both countries. Now, can I just ask you two guys, do you lobby your counterparts in Australia, in the Greens and Labour, to run down the same road because we have struck a brick wall in both Greens and Labour in Australia on this issue? Well speaking for the Greens, we have some level of interaction with the Aussie Greens, but it's a bit tricky because of your strange political system. So the Aussie Greens are not one organisation. There's the federal Greens and there's the Greens in each of the states and territories. And so there tend to be individuals over there like Bob Brown, for example, Adam Bent, Scott Ludlam, that we do have good relationships with, but they tend to be personal relationships rather than sort of trans-Tasman political alliances. We have a desire to have a better political relationship with them, but so far that desire, as with many of our other desires, remains unrequited. So we are in good contact with the Australian Labour Party. I have to say I have never had a conversation with my counterpart about what they should be doing about drug law reform. But as Kevin was talking, it occurred to me that we have made a lot of progress on a joint regulator of medicinal drugs and so-called natural products. We could be thinking about how we could apply that joint regulation approach to recreational substances as well. We could talk about it. That's me making up policy whilst I'm sitting in front of you. Naughty, it's very naughty. Does mana have much connection with Aboriginal groups within Australia? Hone, of course, went over there and toured some of their open-air prisons. Are there connections there about the same issues? I don't think we've ever responded to government initiatives for health prevention. Indigenous communities are developing our own strategies. I'm proud to say as mana, I've been working with Aboriginal Torres Strait Islanders and a number of communities to look at ways that the impacts of the war on drugs can minimise the way that communities function. We regularly meet with a number of Aboriginal leaders to look at strategies that may be imposed in the Pacific. We're not in favour of the anthropotic approach because we see a fundamental question is whose knowledge is getting stolen and commodified through those processes. We've been more with the local shopperson who deals with locally produced product here and we're trying to prevent that joint regulatory approach that says Indigenous communities. We're not opposed to it, but the danger of it is is that that tier takes away our tino rangatiratanga or the right to self-determine our own house priorities. Next question from the floor. Next question, hands up, right here. Thank you. Just interested in the question of tax and I guess the size of the market. Just as a little aside, I visited a couple of the shops last night and asked a couple of the customers why this and not cannabis or some grass. They said, well, one guy said, look, I'm a regular smoker, I'm basically addicted and I can't score tonight. So there's a substitute product clearly between the Caminoids and I've noted the question before how irrational it is to have an analogous substitute cannabis while cannabis is illegal. It makes no sense and I imagine the future will be a, if the legislation is acceptable and pursued, cannabis will come under that same psychoactive drugs. I mean, it must in any logical extension or else the pendulum will swing the other way and this legislation will be retracted or repealed, which of course is the fear, which is why, because a lot of people are here to give it some credence. The question again comes down to dollars and cents though. It's a substitute product. We know the marijuana market is a hundreds of millions dollar market in New Zealand, a billion dollar market in Australia. The tax revenues run into, potential tax revenues, run into the billions and perhaps again politically speaking, and I was interested to hear that, you know, yeah, I hate to be the same old thing we're politically animals here and we know how far we can go and the comments Fiona said of the situation in Australia that politicians will push the envelope so far but for their own political survival, will only go so far. I guess the point I'm leading to is that dollars and cents, money in the pockets to pay for, you know, not just rehabilitations but bottom line schools, education, services for the indigenous people that are suffering under these policies, is the market quantified? Is there an argument that can be put by politicians to the public as leaders, which is what we look to our politicians for, to put the argument that he sees billions of dollars that could be spent for the welfare, the good of mankind? I'll answer it. The conundrum for us in Mana is that the tool of the coloniser was alcohol and tobacco, came in with that promise of tax for our benefit in 150 years has not proven that for us. Secondly, where revenue is gained, it's not self-determined in its prioritisation by indigenous communities. Quite often we become add-on providers or the afterthought. So any taxation benefit to us needs to be clearly, I think, thought through and for us. The war on the poor is our priority and that's the fundamental reality in this country, that there is this huge economic apartheid that exists and I'm not too sure if the tax on marijuana or any substitute substance is going to deal with that in a fundamental way. We had a bit of a conversation at the select committee about whether it was desirable to introduce an excise tax on the synthetic products which are regulated by the Psychoactive Substances Act. The advice that we got from the Ministry of Health was that because we usually use an excise tax simply to push up price as a harm reduction tool if we consider the way we've used it with alcohol and with tobacco, that as a harm reduction tool that we'd be better off seeing what the market looked like, seeing what the pricing points were and within the act there is a requirement that we do a review after five years and I think the view amongst the bureaucrats is that the five-year point would be the time to look at what we should do with an excise tax and we bought that argument at the time as we were speeding through this legislation at breakneck speed and it's one of the things I think we got wrong. I think we should have put an excise tax on psychoactives and if anything else ever falls under the Psychoactive Substances Act then I think an excise tax should be applied to that as well and likewise as we have with alcohol, as I mentioned, we can apply levies for things like the Health Promotion Agency that are hypothecated into the health system and used for education and harm reduction. Yeah, of course we support a tax. In terms of adding something to the conversation that's already taken place about this issue, there's an active conversation in New Zealand at the moment about taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages, sugary drinks and potentially on foods as well and there's a world literature about what makes those things successful and what doesn't and one of the things that is a necessary thing for public support of such a tax and I fully appreciate these are not entirely parallel situations but the hypothecation of the tax, so actually using the tax to fund services that clearly establish public good rather than simply as a source of revenue for the Government as a whole seems to be a crucial element. So given that we've got a whole lot of alcohol and drug treatment services in this country that clearly do not have the capacity that they need to be able to provide for the needs that people have, this seems to me to be a possible win-win situation so impose the tax and hypothecate it, use it to properly fund alcohol and drug treatment services. Quick question to all three of you. How much of an impact do you think the welfare reforms in New Zealand which saw beneficiaries all now drug-tested, how much of an impact has that had in the growth of the synthetic cannabis market because if people are going to lose their benefit or welfare if they're caught smoking cannabis, they quickly transfer. Is that one of the consequences that were unforeseen or that was actually something they wanted? So I'm holding the microphone. I have no information about this at all. My guess is that there has been a significant effect as to whether it was the intention or not. I tend to think it probably wasn't the intention but they're probably not unhappy about that as a consequence. Do you ask us what the intended consequence of the policy was? It had nothing to do with making workplaces safer or getting beneficiaries off drugs. It was about getting middle-class people to hate on beneficiaries. But in terms of unintended consequences, my gut tells me that if cannabis and other drugs show up in a test and synthetics don't, then the natural consequence of that is that people will move into the things that don't show up on the test. What I find bizarre is that because cannabis can be detected days after it's been used, and you probably aren't under the influence of cannabis when you show up for your job interview or you show up at work. But methamphetamine and various other things which everybody considers to be worse alongside psychoactives are all out of your system by the time you show up at work, there's an incentive to actually do harder drugs. The policy's mad. Do we need to look at impairment in terms of cannabis rather than just testing for its availability when it comes to those who are being tested for work or for... Well, I come from Lotudu in the forestry industry where the use of cannabis and legal highs is being highly scrutinised by employers. And there is an appropriate distinction between those because the tests discriminate against those that are cannabis users that don't get caught in it. The reality is, though, workers' safety should be paramount and there should have been an education process and workers' rights should have been prioritised in that process because most of them are working 14 hours. And that a lot of these young men have been directed there following the benefit cuts and changes because they are the hard labourers that are being required to fill the forests long 14, 15-hour days and many of them are using drugs just to stay awake. So there has been a much greater consequence and that's the huge loss of life. 13 young men died in my region last year and I think at least three-quarters had some either legal high or cannabis element and some of the factors being explored as to why those deaths are good. So, yes, the beneficial recuts by Paula Benefit and the others need to be really carefully scrutinised and we need much better testing. Getting back to this, though, those are the reasons why people scare monger not to provide solutions and I think they're not to be seen as barriers to a single approach to drug reform that faces on health as opposed to criminality. To the floor, question over here. Hi, my name is Warren Skill. I'm a retailer in Avigargo for psychoactive substances. When it first came about selling loose products most of the reasons given to me at the time was they were changing to synthetic cannabis because they couldn't do marijuana or cannabis anymore because they would be tested at work. You touched on it a little bit before the men in the front about this issue but I think it's been left out that they're actually testing for synthetic cannabis as well and they're testing for old products but some of the old products components are in the new products. A lot of people are being punished for doing now what is a legal product in their own time, not at work. When will some proper laws be made up around workplace testing now that this is law has come into effect to this new psychoactive substances wouldn't something need to be changed in workplace testing or some kind of framework be put in there because at this stage employers can pretty much do what they want within the law but a lot of them are actually breaking the law. Thank you for that. Any other questions from the floor? We've got anyone else put their hand up? Let me round, right here, just here. Up here? Microphone. Up the front here. Hello, I'm Brian Emerson from Canada. It's a little ways away. Had a little opportunity to see how things are starting to unfold. It's very interesting and I appreciate the comments about local authorities and how given more time it could be done differently. The observation seems to be that some local authorities are using local policies to actually affect a prohibition within the geography of their communities and I'm wondering in terms of going forward what your perspective would be on the ability of local authorities to actually affect a ban in their communities or is there a way between allowing availability but control and allowing local authority autonomy versus the central authority principles of the New Psychoactive Substances Act? Yeah, it's interesting. We've heard a lot of councils talking about how they would like to be able to use the local plans to affect a ban and how a lot of their constituents would like them to do that. But we've yet to see a council come up with an effective ban with the exception of Hamilton that doesn't plan to ban them in the long term but has come up with a plan that just bans all the ones that are already there and then retrospectively applying that which is an interesting legal situation that I know some people in the room are pursuing. Councils are aware that the intention of the legislation was not to ban the retail of psychoactive substances and I know in my own city, Palmerston North, as we've been... Obviously I'm not on the council but I've been submitting and working with people who have made submissions around their local plan that has always been the view that we have to accept that psychoactive substances need to be available for sale in our city. Let's just figure out where we want that to happen, how many outlets we think is an appropriate amount and what are the sensitive sites that we don't want them to be sold near that kind of thing. And the fear that has been articulated by the council is that if they are too restrictive, then the Ministry of Health will essentially ignore their local plan when it comes time for full licences to be applied for. So I actually think the legislation is about right now. It's just that the councils have wanted to use it to go further than it allows them to but will probably discover as they go through this process that they're not able to. If they are, well then that's an error on our part and we'd have to go back and have a look at the legislation. It's kind of interesting, isn't it? I think that what we are seeing with some of the councils, particularly some of the smaller local authorities, is effectively a ripple from the moral panic that was gripping the country prior to the act. And so a lot of councils are still in fact using arguments as if the act didn't exist. So I think that's probably a temporary thing and that while it's frustrating in the short term and the longer term will work through that I do have I mean one of the concerns I have is I do want councils to be able to restrict the places where retail outlets can be and my where I come from on that is that if we put up a map of the country or a particular area and then mark where the liquor outlets are and the gambling outlets are and the fast food outlets are actually what we see is a targeting by industry of communities that are poor or marginalised and I don't think we want to do that. So I think it is entirely appropriate for councils to be able to control where outlets should be provided that they do so on a rational basis rather than a moral panic basis. Anya? I don't think I can add one more but I know from an indigenous perspective we've tried to resist this notion of one law for all to enable this flexibility within local communities to be given some force at least to target where these outlets may be regulated but more importantly programmes that facilitate the harm of it being understood they go hand in hand but we have a dogma in this country inherited from our colonisers the British law one law for all and unfortunately we haven't adapted our system to enable that measure of flexibility to enable a more different approach which I think harnesses the values of health and well-being which a Māori jurisprudence approach may be more akin to than one based on punishment. Any more questions from the... Yep, yep. This question is actually for the MPs who aren't here but perhaps you guys can answer it Recently three or four or five products had the interim product approvals withdrawn to diverse effects which were phoned into the 0800 line One of those products I can't remember its name that was pulled off the shelves is identical to a product which is still available for sale This doesn't engender confidence in what the Ministry of Health is actually doing. Can you shed any light on this at all? It's not often I'm the most right-wing person on the political panel so I'll try and speak for the National Party Look this is this resourcing issue so we passed the law, great. So what? We then have to actually make sure the Ministry is appropriately resourced to be able to enforce the law properly and I just don't think that half a dozen people in the Ministry trying to write the new regulations do the consultation on the new regulations issue interim licences figure out how they're going to issue full licences and enforce the law and deal with complaints about substances that are potentially causing more than a low risk of harm is actually enough. So passing legislation wasn't the end of the story but Government would like to think that it was and that everything is fixed So I think the answer to your question is making sure that the Ministry and the other agencies that are involved are appropriately resourced to be able to respond to that kind of situation and this will just be that will be a pure oversight they'll have reacted they'll have had the call in about a particular substance they'll have said right we've got to do something about that and they won't have had the resource to actually go through and the time to say hang on well what else fits the same formula? Well I mean there are no fees and levies at the moment so if there's any fee or levy they're going to have to rise and look I think that's the part of it is that the industry does have to kind of pay its way here it's rights and responsibilities so they have the right to sell the products and with that comes the responsibility Kevin, anything to add? You can't put yourself into a National Party Headspace Would you want to? We've got any more over here Question? I'll just a quick point there the regulatory authority which has been set up is funded by licensing fees at present so we pay for a license to retail you pay hundreds of thousands I think for a license to put a product through so there is some infrastructure there which we are paying dealie for already Last question here Just want to pick up on a colleague of my friend next to me here I think there might be a bit of infusion health surveillance around why that call might have been made on that particular product the Ministry of Health gets monthly reports from the New Zealand Poison Centre and the Pharmacology and Vigilance Centre and it's on the basis of those monthly reports that decisions based on revoking interim licenses are applied and it could be that even though the product name is the same there might be like a batch with a different level of the active ingredient and we made a distinction earlier today between psychoactive products and substances themselves so that might be an issue I mean having recently spent a fair bit of time looking at the legislation I'm increasingly impressed with how it's been developed exactly the same level exactly the same level okay I'm still not convinced that it was just like a straight oversight you know I think the other thing you have to remember is that this process that's evolving it's incredibly young it's been in operation eight months it's an astounding thing there are going to be some wrinkles but hey big ups to the people that have put it into motion and let's continue to watch look I've got no issue with the people who are doing the job I just wish they had a little bit more help and a little bit more resource and you're right about the fact that it's evolving the I guarantee you some things taken off the shelf for reasons that perhaps don't necessarily stack up on an evidence base but we had to have that there because we agreed to leave things on the shelf before the approval process was in place we had to have the ability to take things off the shelf and I don't know that we could do it much better than what we've put in place final question to all three of you so in terms of drug reform in New Zealand if you are part of any government by the end of the year what could we expect would we see drug reform as part of a government's legislative line up or would we see a private members bill well what you would see from us is as I said a full response to the law commission report and then a replacement for the misuse of drugs act but I would want that to be on a first principles basis on principles of harm reduction and getting the regulatory system right I wouldn't want it to be about any one particular substance so what I don't anticipate you seeing from Labour is anything that says specifically we will decriminalise or legalise cannabis we want to look at the drug regulation system in total Kevin It depends how strong we are in our new government Did you get that code? Certainly our viewpoint is in relation to your question about government measure or private members bill actually it's just a members bill now we think it should be government that's actually leading on this it should be a government bill we're not really in favour of a conscious vote it's a basic policy issue that government parties need to have policy on however if allowing a conscious vote means we get the numbers I'm all for it are these two staunch enough to do it or is it going to be a members bill? I think that's the backstop the members bill but I also don't want to get bogged down in a legislative process so that's what we should be doing when we actually do nothing so I think mana would demand at least some incremental outcome before any final review occurred and we would demand that so given that the only policy we have is medical, medicinal, marijuana at the purpose that would be a bottom line discussion point and we would like to know when Ladies and gentlemen if the drug reform is up to these three ladies and gentlemen please thank you for being brave enough to actually come along and have the mana about yourself to state your political parties positions unlike so many other political parties today thank you very much ladies and gentlemen granted's all yours