Mitchell ClaytonCLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Madam Chair thank you very much for this call. This is the first opportunity that we've had to stand up to talk to this bill in this very important part which is the naming of this bill. I just want to acknowledge the member in the chair for his contributions standing up and answering some of those questions. This is a bill that is clearly about division by multiplication. New Zealand First certainly does support this where it sits at the moment. The title of the bill the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill I think actually hits to the heart of the problem that this country is facing right now. Although all members of this committee understand the insidious nature of psychoactive substances and the terrible role they play within our society to break down the very core of our existence the naming of this bill is very important. The naming of this bill—very very clean; not like a lot of other bills I have to say that can be a little bit ambiguous—gets to the core very very quickly. If there was to be a name change—and I'm not suggesting that we're going to be putting through an amendment to change the name of this bill—you might want to put in there the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply Distribution and Manufacturing) Amendment Bill". I think the actual point here is the people that get hooked on these drugs—the people that actually become dependent upon the use of these drugs that are forced on them and that have the absolute access to them—are being penalised under the current regime. This bill here is actually getting to the core of the problem and the title of this bill is actually calling the problem out that it is in the manufacturing—although it's not in the title but I did suggest perhaps you might want to reconsider the "Manufacturing" part. It's about the distribution and it's about the supply of these insidious drugs that by the member's own definition under the current legislation can be easily changed with a new drug or a new additive or a new chemical compound to change just the slightest part of the drug to turn it into a new drug which is then not captured. When we're talking about supply distribution and manufacturing we're actually getting to stopping this terrible drug going into our communities. It's caused so many deaths; it's caused so much destruction. There's not a single person—as I've already said before here tonight—that doesn't want to see something done. And right now this is affirmative action from the member. We'd like to see it probably go further—a little bit wider. We've got a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) which I won't talk about now but will talk about a little bit later on that we would like to see introduced to increase those penalties. Because until some real changes come about until we as a society point the finger at the very people—Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I've been listening to the speaker very carefully. I've been watching the clock. For over a minute he has made no mention at all of the short title. There is no amendment before the committee on the short title. If the member wants to debate an SOP for a later clause I would suggest that we get on and debate that clause. CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you—[Interruption] I haven't called the member yet. I do agree with the member and I have been traversing this for all of the call. I'm going to allow the member to continue but I'll give you one final warning. CLAYTON MITCHELL: Thank you Madam Chair. I thank the member opposite for soaking up my precious time with his comment—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! I have been very generous.CLAYTON MITCHELL: Thank you Madam Chair. I appreciate your generosity this evening. It is after all members' day and a great opportunity for us to debate very very meaningful legislation particularly the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill. I mean I'm looking across at the member here—it might actually even be worth putting an SOP in now at such short notice to see if we can get that through because I think manufacturing does need to be part of this conversation. I think it's something that needs to be considered strongly by this committee. As I've said before this is something that this country takes very seriously and the naming of a bill is very important to make sure that people when they read the title of the bill—that it doesn't leave anything to their imagination and takes away any ambiguity. This bill the way it's titled right now I believe is clear. It could be a little bit clearer with the word "Manufacturing" put in there and perhaps Simeon Brown might like to answer that question of whether he would consider changing the name of the bill when he takes another call on this very important part in clause 1 of the naming of the bill. Thank you Madam Chair."