Clark DavidClause 1 TitleHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Clause 1 relates to the title of the bill. Before we get too far in I want to acknowledge that this is a sensitive and live issue. We've learnt not very long ago of another death that is provisionally attributed to psychoactive substances in Napier and I want to extend my sympathies and concern to the family and friends of the person who has died. And I'm sure I speak on behalf of the whole House when I extend those sympathies. People come from many different views to debate this bill but I think what unites the House is a genuine concern for those people who are dying from these products. So I do want to acknowledge that death and pay respect to those who are affected by it.The title of this bill is currently the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill. I want to put forward an argument that the title itself is a misnomer and should indeed be changed because I believe the suggestion is that increasing the penalty will affect supply and distribution. That is implicit in the title of the bill as it is currently worded and I find that to be implausible. I do not think there is any evidence—there is certainly no credible evidence—that suggests that increasing a penalty will actually affect supply and distribution as a deterrent and we heard in the select committee submissions from the Police Association who said they knew of no evidence that increasing penalties would interrupt supply that it would have an effect as a deterrent because they've seen no evidence. The Police Association have not seen evidence that convinces them that increasing a penalty would have any effect on supply and distribution. So that's the argument I want to lay out.I want to say that the title of the bill is currently a misnomer and should be changed. I would rather that it said Psychoactive Substances"—and I'll ask the member who's responsible for the bill; I am hesitant because I suspect he may not agree with me; he's outlined a different point of view in the debate. So I'll hesitantly suggest my title; he may have another one. Perhaps the title might better read "Psychoactive Substances (Incarcerating for Longer) Amendment Bill". That is the effect of this bill—that and that alone is likely to be the effect of this bill. Those who are picked up and incarcerated will be incarcerated for longer including those who are caught up as users who are peddling to support their habit rather than necessarily the big surprise that we know are the ones that we need to interrupt if we want to make this a health issue rather than merely an issue that criminalises more New Zealanders who are caught up with addictions.So changing the title of the bill therefore to "Psychoactive Substances (Increased Length of Incarceration) Amendment Bill" or similar would be a more accurate title. I put that forward for the member's consideration and for the consideration of other members in the committee because I think it's important as a Parliament that the bills that we pass in this Parliament are in plain English that they can be engaged with by the public and that people can understand the purpose of them. I think the way that the bill is worded at the moment as I suggest is a little bit misleading. It's a misnomer to suggest that that will have any effect on supply and distribution.We've also heard from groups like Ngāti Whātua who also say that this bill will disproportionately affect Māori because many of those caught up in addictions and certainly caught up in the criminal justice system and incarcerated for these kinds of crimes are Māori. So as a second potential amendment to the title we might want to also somehow label the negative effect that iwi have noted in their submissions on Māori that will come as a consequence of this bill.That will be the end of my first contribution because I wanted to ask that question. I have some other questions to ask but I will save them for further contributions."