Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill

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.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m very pleased to stand and take a call on this, the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill. Can I please acknowledge the sponsor of the bill, Simeon Brown, who brought this bill to the House. Because he has had representations made to him by his constituents, because he supported a family that has faced and suffered a tragedy through the use of these psychoactive substances, he is deeply passionate about this. He worked very hard on it. He identified what he thought was a bill that could come to this House and would go some way towards helping around the distribution of what we, sadly, see is taking a heavy toll on our communities daily. I want to acknowledge the Minister of Health and share in his comments. My condolences and my thoughts are with the family of that person who died recently in Hawke’s Bay.

I was in Christchurch about four weeks ago and I met with John Price, the police area commander. At that time, they had 14 people in intensive care who had had a very bad reaction to a bad batch of psychoactive substances. I have to say, though, that I am disappointed that the Labour Party, in particular, is not supporting this bill. I have to say also that it seems to be very convenient for them—and I want to refer to some of the comments that the Minister made around the evidence-based legislation being brought to this House.

It seems to me that, when the Government brings legislation to this House, for example, the massive and negative impact they’ve made on the oil and gas sector—that was done without any evidence. If there was evidence, then we’d like to see it. They made a massive decision—

Chlöe Swarbrick: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Sorry, just seeking your guidance. My understanding is that we are presently debating the title clause within this legislation, and may I hesitate to suggest that it appears as though the member is going outside of that ambit.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you. I thank the member for the intervention. It is entirely up to the Chair to rule on relevance. This is only the second call, but you are right. I will ask members not to stray past the title part of the bill, considering the committee has deemed it that this is a clause by clause debate rather than it being taken as one question.

Thank you, Madam Chair. All I’m doing is addressing the issues that the Minister has raised. So I will come back to the title, and I’d like to raise the point—and maybe a caller from the Government can respond to this—that the Minister said they had no evidence that would indicate or show that having tougher penalties in relation to people who are dealing—

💬 Hon Dr David Clark: It’s the Police Association’s claim.

—these drugs. Well, so all the Minister is going off is the Police Association’s claim.

💬 Hon Dr David Clark: No. No. I’ve referred to others. There’s no evidence I’ve seen. But I agree. I agree.

So what was the correction? There’s no evidence?

💬 Hon Dr David Clark: No evidence that I’ve seen that’s credible.

OK. So he said that there’s no evidence—he’s just correcting the record, and I’ll put it on Hansard. There’s no evidence that he said or has presented to the House that is credible, and I assume—

💬 Hon Dr David Clark: That shows a deterrent effect.

That’s showing that it has a deterrent effect? OK. So that’s what I want to speak about. And that’s why I find it very surprising that the Labour Government—and their coalition partner, New Zealand First, is supporting this; they can see value in it. I just don’t understand why the Labour Government isn’t taking a strong position in terms of supporting this bill when the Minister himself just stood in the committee and said that we’ve just lost another life. There is a family suffering right now in Hawke’s Bay because they’ve just lost one of their loved ones.

This will make a difference, because what it means—

💬 Marja Lubeck: This isn’t going to solve it.

Sorry, did a member over there say something? I’ll put that on the Hansard as well.

What this bill does do is it provides a deterrent in the sense of someone that is dealing drugs now, before they take that step to actually start dealing these psychoactive substances, they are going to have to look very carefully at what that means in terms of imprisonment and the type of sentence that they will be facing.

Let’s flip it the other way and say that the Police Association comes out and says there is no evidence to say this will make a difference. So if you’re applying that logic, does it mean that we should actually be going back and reducing sentences—that that would make no difference in terms of offending? Because I actually—

💬 Marja Lubeck: It doesn’t even make any sense to make that leap.

Well, the member seems very keen to make comments. Please make them so I can hear them, so I can repeat them and put them on the Hansard.

💬 Marja Lubeck: I said that leap doesn’t make any sense.

Sorry, what was that?

💬 Kiritapu Allan: It doesn’t make any sense.

What do you mean “It doesn’t make any sense.”? You’re putting an argument to us—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Not me.

—in this committee tonight that penalties—sorry, Madam Chair. So your argument is—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No. No.

—simply this: that penalties don’t matter—that penalties don’t matter. So the member is trying to put the argument to us in New Zealand now that penalties do not matter—that they cannot be a deterrent to offending. If that’s what you believe, the next speaker should take a call and explain to us that position.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I continue my—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Yes—that was a point of order.

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.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. As we’re debating this bill clause by clause, I want to address some of the questions which have been raised in regard to my bill, which is the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill.

My comments are brief. The bill is entitled with exactly what it does. What it does is in the title: it increases the penalty for supply and distribution. That’s exactly what it does, in terms of amending section 70, which has offences relating to psychoactive substances that are not approved products. These include “(1) A person commits an offence if the person, without reasonable excuse,—(a) sells or supplies a psychoactive substance that is not an approved product … (b) offers to sell or supply a psychoactive substance that is not an approved product … (c) possesses a psychoactive substance that is not an approved product with the intent to sell …”. So the title of the bill is exactly what the bill does, by changing the maximum sentence which can be given to someone who is found guilty of supplying a synthetic drug.

So I reject the claims that this is, in fact, something which is undermining the purpose of the Psychoactive Substances Act. I would draw the Minister’s attention to the “Purpose” section of the Psychoactive Substances Act—or the principles, in section 4, which include, in section 4(d): “a psychoactive [product] that poses more than a low risk of harm to individuals who use the product should be prohibited:”. So the Psychoactive Substances Act does two things. Yes, it creates a regulated market for those who can prove that their drugs are of low risk and, secondly, what it does is it says that all other psychoactive substances which are not proved to be of low risk should be prohibited.

So I reject what the Ministers, both the Hon David Clark and the Hon Stuart Nash, have suggested, because this bill is doing two things. My bill is simply addressing those who are found guilty of supplying synthetic drugs in the community and increasing the penalty, because we have seen the increased harm—both Ministers have spoken about it. The Hon Mark Mitchell has spoken about the increased harm that we are seeing in the community.

And the reality is that we have a mismatch here: we have a maximum two-year sentence for supplying drugs which are causing huge amounts of deaths in New Zealand; and what we have is, if you go to the Misuse of Drugs Act, a class C drug is attributed with eight years. So there is a clear mismatch which needs to be done here.

The Government has already indicated that they’re seeking to increase the penalty for some of these substances to potentially class A drugs, which attribute a 20-year maximum sentence. So I think the question here is how do we want to address this? My bill catches all of these non-approved drugs and says let’s put in place a penalty regime which then allows the courts to determine what the penalty should be in the individual instances, rather than letting the Minister have to go through a process of constantly scheduling under the Misuse of Drugs Act, which is a year-long process, to do that. So the title’s very clear. The bill does exactly what the title says, and I commend the title to the House.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. I just would seek the Chair’s guidance on the advisers that appear to be present. I’m not sure if they’re from the ministry or from Mr Brown’s office. It is entirely within the discretion of the Chair, I understand. But I have just seen about advisers under Speaker’s ruling—what have we got here?—8/2. Ministers are entitled to have advisers, but members perhaps not. So I’d seek the Chair’s guidance on whether they are, in fact, advisers, and whether they’re ministerial advisers.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): It’s entirely at my discretion who is in the Chamber, and it’s perfectly fine for the member’s advisers to be there.

I move, That the question be now put.

Madam Chair, thank you. I just wanted to question a few of the arguments that were put forward by the member in charge of this bill, which is, of course, Simeon Brown. I want to acknowledge him for his luck in having his member’s bill drawn and, obviously, progressed to the committee of the whole House stage.

So this clause that we’re debating at the moment is in regard to the title of this piece of proposed legislation, which is, of course, the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill. I wanted to speak to the points that the member raised with regard to the purpose. So the purpose, in Part 1, Subpart 1 of the original Act which this member’s bill seeks to amend—that purpose is, and I quote, “The purpose of this Act is to regulate the availability of psychoactive substances in New Zealand to protect the health of, and minimise harm to, individuals who use psychoactive substances.” The clauses that were quoted by the member previously were, of course, within the principles framework, that being section 4 of the original Act.

The reason that I cite this is because, as has been mentioned by a number of members prior to myself, the very purpose of the original Act which this member’s bill seeks to amend is to regulate—is to create a regulated drug market. My question to the member, as pertaining to the title of this legislation, is: is the member aware of how wide-ranging the changes that are being proposed with regard to increasing penalties will be, in that is the member aware that there may be a better approach, for example in amending the Misuse of Drugs Act such as to contain the two particular chemicals that have been implicated in all of the deaths with regard to the use of synthetics?

So my question to the member is around how wide-ranging this increase in penalties will be—i.e., how many substances or potential substances or variables of substances or chemical cocktails will be captured, but also whether the member is aware that it is those two substances, those two chemical compounds of synthetic cannabinoids, that have been implicated in those 50 deaths around the country?

I also want to point to the fact that this Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill title refers solely to increasing penalty for supply and distribution. But is the member aware that in section 70, which this piece of legislation seeks to amend in clause 4, there would in fact be captured, per section 70(1)(c) of the original Psychoactive Substances Act, those who possess a psychoactive substance that is not an approved product with the intent to sell or supply the psychoactive substance to any person? On that point, I would like to ask the member in charge of this piece of legislation whether he is aware who that would capture and what threshold is required—as in, what qualifies for the intent to sell or supply?

To that point, perhaps a better name or title for this member’s bill is the “Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution or Intent to Supply or Sell) Amendment Bill. I would ask the member to answer all of those questions as addressed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for those additional questions in regard to the intent of the bill. Yes, Chlöe Swarbrick correctly points out that the purpose section says that “The purpose of this Act is to regulate the availability of psychoactive substances in New Zealand to protect the health of, and minimise harm to, individuals who use psychoactive substances.” Under “Principles” it also includes “(d) a psychoactive product that poses more than a low risk of harm to individuals who use the product should be prohibited:”. So part of the intention of this Act is that some of these products will be prohibited. So that is part of how the Act is set up, and therefore under section 70, if people are selling and supplying those products which aren’t approved, they are considered to be prohibited and they are illegal.

Answering the second question of how many substances does that capture, well, it captures all substances which are not approved. So therefore, going to her point around “Well, there could be a couple of products which we do know are causing a huge amount of deaths”, they could be scheduled under the Misuse of Drugs Act, but, if this bill does not go through, we will leave an incentive for those to change the concoction of chemicals which they use. They will change the mix of chemicals that they will use and they will find another chemical compound which they will then switch to, and the Minister of Health will be left in a situation where he has to then try and reschedule something different and something new.

So the reality is this is a catch-all, and this is something which says we recognise the harm and we are going to catch all of those people who are selling or supplying synthetic drugs which are not approved, and we will be prohibiting it and then giving the courts the discretion and the ability to be able to apportion the appropriate penalty, as has been put forward in the guidelines from Justice Brewer in the High Court case of Moore v R [2015], which outlines the three categories broadly speaking as to the guidelines on which the court will then apply the sentence depending on the level of offending which is evidenced.

So the final question there was around section 70. I think it was section 70(1)(c)—which I will just turn to—which is possessing a psychoactive substance that is not an approved product. I think that takes into account those who could be manufacturing the product and a range of other things.

💬 Hon Dr David Clark: What’s the threshold?

So I think the threshold is something which will be determined by the courts, and that’s something which the courts have already provided guidelines as to what will constitute that.

Before I call a member, I just want to caution that we’re not straying into a clause 3 debate.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a great pleasure to take a call on this bill, the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill. I thank the member in the chair for his intervention just now, which has been very helpful, because I think what he does is illustrate the point that this bill represents, which is it is less about the specifics of psychoactive substances, even though that’s in the title of the bill, but it goes to an underlying kind of policy presumption about penalties for drug possession and drug peddling. It is for this reason that I think the title of the bill is totally misnamed.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. This very member was one who insisted on the clause by clause argument being very narrowly defined around the short title. I think the Minister is straying way beyond that. The sole issue for the committee on this clause is whether this is the appropriate title for the bill.

💬 Clayton Mitchell: Speaking to the point of order—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): If you must.

💬 Clayton Mitchell: Yeah, I must. I think that has been a very clear articulation by the Minister, talking about the title of the bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No, sit. [Interruption] No, that’s not a point of order. We will continue with this call, but I give one for further warning. This is about clause 1—[Interruption] Order! I’m ruling.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think in order to make the point about the proposed changes to the title that I am suggesting, it is necessary to make the case about why this is avoiding the real issue, why this is a cop-out, and that’s why I think that as this committee debates the title of the bill, we should understand that actually the title of the bill does not achieve the objectives set out for it. There is nothing more important, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, than sitting in this Chamber and being part of an important debate that is going to affect the lives, or potentially affect the lives, of many, many young people, most importantly their families—so many families in distress looking for an answer to this very real social problem.

Psychoactive substances and what we do about them is one of the major social, moral, and legal challenges that we face. Getting the legislation on this right, and having a title on legislation that is honest about what we’re trying to achieve is just as important.

Saying that increasing the penalty for supply and distribution is somehow an answer to this insidious social problem is just avoiding the real issue and is copping out. That is why I say the title of this bill is poorly directed. It is poorly named. It does not say what actually this will do. This will avoid the issue for another generation to come. That’s why it is important, when we consider these issues, that we actually start to talk about the real issues that underpin this insidious problem that we have right across New Zealand.

I am actually considering accepting a closure motion unless I have—one more chance at doing this correctly and sticking to the title clause.

💬 Clayton Mitchell: Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I haven’t called you, Clayton Mitchell.

💬 Clayton Mitchell: I know, but I’m thanking you in advance.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I will call Clayton Mitchell, but I’m warning the member: I will sit you down if this is not a relevant contribution.—

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.

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.

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.

I move, That the question be now put.

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.

I’m happy to put one forward, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, no. You referred to an amendment from Chlöe Swarbrick.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is my good fortune to speak on the commencement clause, which I think should be delayed, and I would suggest, instead of the words “This Act comes into force”—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The Minister has assumed we’re debating the commencement clause. We’re not debating the commencement clause; we are still debating the short title, and the Minister should be held to giving the speech consistent with the title.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): My apologies—my apologies. I wasn’t listening properly. We are still on clause 1.

I’ve made my case for the change of title. I’ll allow another member to speak—my mistake, on this occasion.

As has been well canvassed, I believe, I have one last question remaining for the member in charge of this bill, Simeon Brown, with regard to, in particular, the point that I made earlier as to perhaps a better title being “Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution and Possession with Intention to Supply or Distribute) Amendment Bill”. The question that I want to ask is is the member aware what the demographic is of the average or regular supplier of psychoactive substances, as far as the evidence shows? If so—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, I’m sorry, but that—

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: The reason—Madam Chair, if I may clarify—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You need to relate it to the title.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —that I am relating it to the title—

Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Madam Chair, we have had three warnings to come to the title clause, followed by two final warnings to talk to the title clause, prior to you resuming the Chair. We’ve now had an additional warning to return to the clause. I suggest the members have strayed too far from this, and that we get on with the debate on what they clearly want to be debating.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Speaking to the point of order—

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, I don’t need any help, thank you very much. I have just assumed the Chair. The member is asking a question; I am asking the member to relate that to the title. If she can do that, then she is in order.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Thank you, Madam Chair. Had I been able to speak for 10 more seconds, I would’ve been able to address exactly that. So my point was that the title of this legislation as proposed is the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill. My point was that the way that this bill is drafted will impact those who are using. That is why I’m directing my question to the member in charge of this legislation: what evidence does the member have about the profiling demographic of producers of these psychoactive drugs?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): OK, that’s all very well but it does not relate to the title. I repeat, by the committee deciding to debate clause by clause then the debate is absolutely tightly focused on what the title is. The question the member is asking is the justification for the bill, not the title.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: If I may explain, Madam Chair, otherwise—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, I would like you to speak to clause 1, which is the title. Otherwise, I will have to curtail the speech.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: All right, final question: would the member consider changing the title of this proposed bill to the “Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution and Use of Psychoactive Substances) Amendment Bill”?