Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Thank you Madam Chair. I would like to speak to the amendment that the member Chlöe Swarbrick put forward. In my contribution I spoke about changing the name to specify that it was simply about increasing incarceration time rather than the implication which came from the title in brackets that somehow the supply and distribution would be affected by increasing the penalty. But I actually think the member—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Excuse me a minute—can I just interrupt the member. Are you referring to an actual amendment? I don't seem to have a copy of it.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I'm happy to put one forward Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No no. You referred to an amendment from Chlöe Swarbrick.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Sorry there's been an amendment debated—sorry. Yes I'm using a technical term Madam Chair. Forgive me. It's the suggestion put forward by the member.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Right OK. Continue.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Apologies Madam Chair. The suggestion put forward by the member—and it's important to clarify for the committee—was changing the title to be Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalties for Supply and Distribution and Increasing Penalty for Intent to Supply and Distribute) Amendment Bill". The point that the member made was that by adding that additional phrase we actually got to the nub of the matter in terms of the bill because she then asked the member Simeon Brown what the threshold would be for intent and he was unable to clarify that. I think that that is significant if we are to have a plain English title that actually speaks to the fact that this is a bill that will capture users and those who are peddling minor misdemeanours to support an addiction they have not been able to shake.This bill rather than getting to increasing penalty for supply and distribution also catches within its net those who would be deemed to be supplying and distributing through some deemed intent that has not been specified by the member. And it appears from his response to that suggested change in title that he has not considered what that threshold for intent should be. That is and should be of concern to many of us here because the issue that all of us agree on is the issue that those who supply and distribute—this pertains to the title Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): It's the title we're debating.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The issue captured in the title that we all agree on is that those who intend to supply and distribute at a big high level need to be punished because that is part of a health response. The bit we don't agree on is that those who are actually users—those who are peddling and who would be captured by this longer title which is actually a more accurate description of the bill—should be criminalised for dealing small-time to support a habit that they have not been able to shake because they have not had the necessary support along the way for their addiction.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Look I'm sorry—can you stop the clock. The House actually decided to debate this clause by clause. That means it is a very tight debate. Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I'm debating the title.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No you're not debating the title; you're debating a whole lot of other issues and trying to relate them to a title that has been suggested by another member. So I ask the member to come to this very tight debate on the title in front of us or I will have to curtail your speech.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Madam Chair my argument is that this title is not accurate and needs to be replaced with a different title—that is what I'm arguing. One that is more accurate—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): As long as you argue that and not stray off into other areas.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Yes Madam Chair. So the proposed title that I think is more accurate is to add those extra words in after "and Distribution"—"and Increased Penalty for Intent to Supply and Distribute Without Specified Threshold for Intent"—because that gets to the nub of the issue. I will rest my case there because I believe I have made the case for changing that title because it is an issue that we should all be concerned about."