Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm very pleased to stand and take a call on this the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill. Can I please acknowledge the sponsor of the bill Simeon Brown who brought this bill to the House. Because he has had representations made to him by his constituents because he supported a family that has faced and suffered a tragedy through the use of these psychoactive substances he is deeply passionate about this. He worked very hard on it. He identified what he thought was a bill that could come to this House and would go some way towards helping around the distribution of what we sadly see is taking a heavy toll on our communities daily. I want to acknowledge the Minister of Health and share in his comments. My condolences and my thoughts are with the family of that person who died recently in Hawke's Bay.I was in Christchurch about four weeks ago and I met with John Price the police area commander. At that time they had 14 people in intensive care who had had a very bad reaction to a bad batch of psychoactive substances. I have to say though that I am disappointed that the Labour Party in particular is not supporting this bill. I have to say also that it seems to be very convenient for them—and I want to refer to some of the comments that the Minister made around the evidence-based legislation being brought to this House.It seems to me that when the Government brings legislation to this House for example the massive and negative impact they've made on the oil and gas sector—that was done without any evidence. If there was evidence then we'd like to see it. They made a massive decision—Chlöe Swarbrick: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Sorry just seeking your guidance. My understanding is that we are presently debating the title clause within this legislation and may I hesitate to suggest that it appears as though the member is going outside of that ambit.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you. I thank the member for the intervention. It is entirely up to the Chair to rule on relevance. This is only the second call but you are right. I will ask members not to stray past the title part of the bill considering the committee has deemed it that this is a clause by clause debate rather than it being taken as one question.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you Madam Chair. All I'm doing is addressing the issues that the Minister has raised. So I will come back to the title and I'd like to raise the point—and maybe a caller from the Government can respond to this—that the Minister said they had no evidence that would indicate or show that having tougher penalties in relation to people who are dealing—Hon Dr David Clark: It's the Police Association's claim.Hon MARK MITCHELL: —these drugs. Well so all the Minister is going off is the Police Association's claim.Hon Dr David Clark: No. No. I've referred to others. There's no evidence I've seen. But I agree. I agree.Hon MARK MITCHELL: So what was the correction? There's no evidence?Hon Dr David Clark: No evidence that I've seen that's credible.Hon MARK MITCHELL: OK. So he said that there's no evidence—he's just correcting the record and I'll put it on Hansard. There's no evidence that he said or has presented to the House that is credible and I assume—Hon Dr David Clark: That shows a deterrent effect.Hon MARK MITCHELL: That's showing that it has a deterrent effect? OK. So that's what I want to speak about. And that's why I find it very surprising that the Labour Government—and their coalition partner New Zealand First is supporting this; they can see value in it. I just don't understand why the Labour Government isn't taking a strong position in terms of supporting this bill when the Minister himself just stood in the committee and said that we've just lost another life. There is a family suffering right now in Hawke's Bay because they've just lost one of their loved ones.This will make a difference because what it means—Marja Lubeck: This isn't going to solve it.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry did a member over there say something? I'll put that on the Hansard as well. What this bill does do is it provides a deterrent in the sense of someone that is dealing drugs now before they take that step to actually start dealing these psychoactive substances they are going to have to look very carefully at what that means in terms of imprisonment and the type of sentence that they will be facing.Let's flip it the other way and say that the Police Association comes out and says there is no evidence to say this will make a difference. So if you're applying that logic does it mean that we should actually be going back and reducing sentences—that that would make no difference in terms of offending? Because I actually—Marja Lubeck: It doesn't even make any sense to make that leap.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well the member seems very keen to make comments. Please make them so I can hear them so I can repeat them and put them on the Hansard.Marja Lubeck: I said that leap doesn't make any sense.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry what was that?Kiritapu Allan: It doesn't make any sense.Hon MARK MITCHELL: What do you mean It doesn't make any sense."? You're putting an argument to us—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Not me.Hon MARK MITCHELL: —in this committee tonight that penalties—sorry Madam Chair. So your argument is—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No. No.Hon MARK MITCHELL: —simply this: that penalties don't matter—that penalties don't matter. So the member is trying to put the argument to us in New Zealand now that penalties do not matter—that they cannot be a deterrent to offending. If that's what you believe the next speaker should take a call and explain to us that position."