Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): I am happy to progress a new argument.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): And this is your final—CHLÖE SWARBRICK: This is my final call. Thank you Madam Chair.The one question that still remains in my mind given the numerous questions that I have put before the member and indeed before members of the National Party who have taken no qualms with heckling throughout the contributions of other members or laughing or scoffing is: why have National Party members or the member in charge not risen to respond to any of the deeply serious questions that have been put around the impact and the evidence that clause 4 will have on reducing drug harm and indeed in reducing the harm proliferated in our communities by way of synthetics? Does the National Party agree with treating drug use and addiction as a health issue? And where is the evidence that the proposition or the supposed solution contained within clause 4—to increase penalties—will make any dent whatsoever on reducing the harm of synthetic substances?I want to ask the member: who believes that what is being proposed in clause 4 will make a difference? Who believes that what is being progressed in clause 4 will make a difference because it was put earlier by the Hon Tim Macindoe that the police believe that it will make a difference. As I raised in the select committee submission from the New Zealand Police Association the police in this country do not believe that this will make a difference—that solely increasing penalties will have any impact on reducing drug harm. Academics don't believe that increasing penalties will make a dent in reducing drug harm. Addiction services and specialists don't believe that increasing penalties as proposed in clause 4 of National Party member Simeon Brown's bill will make any impact in reducing drug harm. Not even those who are former addicts or who have engaged in harmful drug behaviour believe that this will have an impact in reducing drug harm.So if it's not police if it is not academics if it is not addiction and drug-abuse specialists and if it is not even people who have been formerly engaged in the criminal black market who believe that this will have any impact in reducing drug crime who believes that it will reduce drug harm and the harm proliferated in communities throughout Aotearoa New Zealand by synthetics? The remaining answer is politicians—politicians who are giving false hope to New Zealanders around this country that this represents any form of solution—because the evidence and the research backs up that this will not have any impact as far as affordability or access to the substances go. Greg O'Connor former chair of the New Zealand Police Association spoke of his front-line experience with regards to heroin and reclassifying that—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Yes and we are straying into repetition.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: I want to speak Madam Chair to the debate that I've raised with regards to reclassification of methamphetamine because that has been correlated in debates in the public to the issue that we have with regards to synthetics and why we need to increase penalties. When we increased penalties for methamphetamine to life imprisonment we didn't see a reduction in harm and in fact we didn't actually see a reduction in usage because Ministry of Health data demonstrates that usage data fluctuated to actually increase.So if it is not police if it is not academics and if it is not addiction specialists I put it to the member to be bold and brave enough to stand up and speak to any shred of evidence that he has that this will do anything to reduce harm. Does he have any evidence at all that solely increasing penalties will save lives because it is not the police it is not addiction specialists it is not those who are at the front lines dealing with this issue at the coalface and I am so concerned that what this represents is false hope.