Nash StuartHon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Thank you very much Madam Chair. We're debating clause 2 the commencement date which says the date comes into force the day after the date in which it receives Royal assent." Well I hope like hell then that this bill never receives Royal assent.It seems listening to Dr Nick Smith the only solution is to build more prisons and lock people up. Well Dr Smith we came into Government with 4000 people on remand and the only plan that the previous Government—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Clause 2—clause 2.Hon STUART NASH: —had to deal with it was to build more prisons. If the solution to this problem that we are dealing with at the moment that Mr Brown wants to lock more people up is in fact jail—if that's what the solution—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Could you speak to clause 2 please which is the commencement date.Hon STUART NASH: I am Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No. We're not talking about jail or what the Government's intentions are. It's about the commencement date: clause 2. It's very tight.Hon STUART NASH: Madam Chair I hear what you're saying. My point is that the moment this bill gains Royal assent the unintended consequences are that our courts will become full. The unintended consequences—it doesn't matter when this comes in. It doesn't matter when this comes in because what Mr Brown wants to do whether it's December or whether it's July next year—the consequences when this bill receives Royal assent is that our courts will be full. We are going to start spending more money on courts.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No I'm sorry to interrupt the member again but the clause is very narrow. It's either that date or another date not what happens after the date OK? It's very narrow.Hon STUART NASH: OK Madam Chair. Well I then propose that this bill never sees the light of day. In fact what we do—[Interruption] No no what we do is we—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): If you put that as an amendment it would be out of order.Hon STUART NASH: —ensure that the commencement date of this bill—that we delay the commencement date of this bill for 10 years. Now why do I suggest that? Why do I suggest that? The reason I suggest that we delay the commencement date of this bill to 2030 is because that will in fact give us time to put a whole lot of different interventions in place. And in 10 years' time if the health interventions haven't worked if nothing has worked like what this Government is putting in place then perhaps I will concede that Mr Smith was right and in fact locking people up is the way forward. But I don't buy that. I don't buy the fact that doing this without trying all the other options—without taking a health approach as opposed to a punitive approach—is the right way to do it. So I recommend that the—Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order Madam Chair. Thank you Madam Chair. The member's straying again now into a health topic. Members on that side of the Chamber made it very clear they objected to me seeking leave to have all provisions taken as one part in this debate and yet clearly they are doing exactly that throughout this—prolonging it in a manner that is unbecoming of them as Government members—and I would suggest that we get on this debate through other clauses.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Thank you. That is a valid point of order but the member speaking is just within scope of clause 2—just by the skin of his teeth.Hon STUART NASH: Thank you Madam Chair. So my suggestion my recommendation to the member in the chair is I would ask him to consider if in fact what we'll do—we'll put this bill forward but we have a commencement date of 2030. So we'll put an amendment forward for 2030. The reason I say that I'd just like to reiterate—and I would have made this point and probably sat down by now if the Opposition acting whip hadn't interrupted me. The reason I suggest this is because I don't believe that giving this bill implementation the moment it receives Royal assent does justice to the issue we're facing. However if it received Royal assent in 2030 then what would actually happen is we can trial a whole lot of different interventions to see if in fact there is not a better way of dealing with this issue except just locking people up—building prisons and locking people up.Let's say this bill receives Royal assent in let's say—I don't know—January 2019 versus 2030. So let's say it comes in 2019 and let's say the first person is locked up for the maximum period of time so that's $110000 a year. If we left it—and that's just one person for one year and let's make an assumption that 10 people are going to be locked up every year for five years—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No come back to the commencement date.Hon STUART NASH: —but if we move it forward to 2030 I reckon that would be about $500 million. So let's see if in fact we can spend that $500 million in a way that makes a difference.I challenge the member to come up with something a little more innovative and give it a chance and see if the money that would be spent by locking people up immediately as opposed to in 2030 might not provide the solution that he's looking for. Thank you very much."