Nash StuartHon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Thank you very much Madam Chair. We're debating the title of this bill. The title is the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill. Let's start with Amendment Bill". What an amendment to any bill is supposed to do is actually make that bill better. It's taking a bill that hasn't worked or for some reason there was a legislative anomaly or when the bill was considered they got something wrong and they've looked at all the evidence they bring an amendment bill in and the amendment bill is supposed to improve the initial bill. This does not improve the initial bill so let's start with that premise.The second point is that this is about psychoactive substances. The psychoactive substances legislation was actually brought in to regulate legal highs. That is why it exists. It is to regulate highs that society or science deems are OK for society to take. Psychoactive substances—Nicola Willis: 50 deaths.Hon STUART NASH: You are dead right: 50 deaths—50 deaths; it was said by that member. That is what we are facing including one today in my home town. Synthetic cannabinoids are not something that should come under the psychoactive substance legislation because in no way shape or form could you ever consider that they are a legal high or they should be regulated or policed under a bill designed to regulate legal substances. They have caused more deaths in the last 12 months than any other drug put together except maybe alcohol.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Soft on crime.Hon STUART NASH: Soft on crime Mr Brownlee? Soft on crime? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. The second thing in the title is "(Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution)". What I suggest is that increasing penalties for supply and distribution is actually political posturing. Let's be brutally honest about this. This is about political posturing. What I would say and I would say this to Simeon Brown—and he's been offered this before. If he is absolutely serious if he wants to make this a crusade about psychoactive substances or about synthetic cannabis which is in essence what this is about if I'm not wrong Mr Brown—it's about synthetic cannabinoids—then we will work very closely with you to make sure we get this right.I can promise you that at the moment Dr Clark myself the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Justice are working really hard on this to make sure we deal with this in a way that is going to make a difference. Playing politics with the lives of Kiwis is wrong. [Interruption] If Mr Brownlee doesn't know that—Mr Brownlee is a member of Parliament in a city that has had over 40 deaths from synthetic cannabis and he stands up here and says this is the right way to deal with it. If Mr Brownlee thinks this is the right way to deal with synthetic cannabinoids then he is not over the issue in any way shape or form. I suggest what he does is get a briefing from someone who knows. The Police Association themselves and the police themselves have said this is not the right approach—the police and the Police Association. Mr Bishop knows this because he has requested under the Official Information Act every single paper I have had on synthetic cannabinoids. I know he is going to stand up and say this is the wrong bill because that is what the police say. That is what the police say that is what the health officials say that is what Customs says that's what Justice says—in fact about the only person in this Parliament who thinks that this is the right thing to do is Mr Brown.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. We are debating clause 1 which is the title. Government members have insisted in their bills when we're debating the title that it is a very narrowly focused debate about the words of the title. I've heard two Government members speak of them. None have made any mention of either the title of the bill or an alternative title and I simply ask—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): That's not entirely correct Dr Smith. Hon Dr Nick Smith: I simply ask that a consistent approach that's been taken on Government bills where they are in the other position is applied by the Chair in respect of the title. CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I agree and I will caution members again. The committee has deemed this to be a clause by clause debate and it is very strictly about the title. Hon STUART NASH: Speaking to the point of order Madam Chair I completely agree with the member but my understanding is that I am allowed to respond to interjections if in fact they're relevant. So I started off—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): And relevance is determined by the Chair. Hon STUART NASH: Thank you Madam Chair. Can I continue my—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Yes—that was a point of order.Hon STUART NASH: So back to my original point in the first half of my speech. First of all this is about psychoactive substances and this is the wrong bill to address this issue. Secondly increasing the penalty for supply and distribution—this is not about that. That will not make a difference. This is about political posturing and my personal view and the view of this Government is that this is the wrong issue to play politics on. We could work together on this to really make a difference. The second thing is that as an amendment bill this is actually making this piece of legislation worse. This is not improving a piece of legislation which was set up to regulate legal highs. There is nothing legal about synthetic cannabinoids. We have a massive problem in our community. Mr Brown if you are serious about this then reach out to us. We will brief you on what we are doing and we would welcome your input because I think the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill is the wrong one."