Penk Chris; Williams PotoCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): I welcome the news that the previous contributor to the debate commends the bill to the House and I look forward to her vote and perhaps that of other colleagues on her side. I think I can not only agree with the end of her speech but also the start in which she commended our parliamentary colleague Simeon Brown for having the hard work and the good luck of first putting the bill into the ballot and second of course having it drawn—hard work and good luck respectively. In this the third and final reading of the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill I'd like to acknowledge as is usual not only the member as I've done but also those who have contributed throughout the process in other ways. I acknowledge—as I'm sure all members of this House do albeit that ultimately sadly some it seems will not support it but nevertheless I'm sure they would join us in acknowledging—the victims of these awful substances within our community; those who have campaigned for sensible drug laws including and especially the families of such victims; and political parties who have supported the bill at least until this stage albeit that we understand that may not continue. In relation to the bill and its intention much has been said that I don't need to re-traverse. Of course within the title of the bill we see that it will be increasing the penalty for supply and distribution. It does what it says on the tin and lest there be any confusion about the point it is for suppliers and distributors as distinct from those who use. I do appreciate the point that was made by Louisa Wall in relation to the potential crossover but nevertheless there is a large number of people who—there are a large number of people? I might have been right the first time. In any case many people are in the category of supplying and distributing but not using themselves and it seems to me obvious that we should do something about that problem. The commencement date of the bill if it should pass would be the date after which it receives the Royal assent and I just make that point simply to note the urgency of the matter not only in relation to the bill but in relation to the difficult and tragic issue indeed of those who are suffering in this way. So it is that if this bill doesn't pass then I hope that the Government will at least do something else useful in that space. Previously within the legislative process we had an amendment to the really key part of the Act which was to increase the penalty for supply and distribution from two years to eight years initially in the form of the bill that was introduced by Mr Brown. That was extended so that it would be increased from two years to 14 years. That was at the initiation of New Zealand First so something of an auction—but they've been all auction and no action because they are going to go missing it seems in action at the final and crucial stage of the bill which is a shame. They will go as silent as the p" in psychoactive. That's a real shame actually for reasons that are all too real and all too meaningful for those in our community who desperately need this change to our law.There are a number of different dichotomies we can explore. We've talked about supply and distribution on the one hand versus usage. Another is the distinction between that which is necessary and that which is sufficient. It's been a criticism of Mr Brown's bill from the other side of the House that it won't be the silver bullet that it won't do everything that is needed in this space. Of course they are right but that much was never claimed by Mr Brown or anyone on this side of the House. It was not ever said or claimed that this would be an entire solution to a difficult and complex problem within our society. But while it's not sufficient it is necessary at least to do something so while it is not everything it is at least something that can and therefore should be done towards solving this terrible problem in our society. Another dichotomy that's been raised with particular emphasis from the other side of the House is justice versus health. So we've been hearing discussions on the head of a pin—maybe not by angels but in any case by those who would draw a false choice between justice and health in saying that drug use and supply should be treated as a health issue and not a justice issue. Well of course it should be treated as both because it is both those things. I don't think anyone in this House would deny the fact that we do need to treat drug use as a health issue and so for those who are addicted it is a matter of health in that we must emphasise encourage and do everything necessary and indeed possible to facilitate their rehabilitation. But that's not to say that it's not also a justice issue and that we shouldn't also treat harshly those who would increase the misery of their fellow Kiwis by dealing in these substances. Other distinctions we can draw perhaps for the purpose of highlighting a meaningless contrast is the causing of death in other ways that our statute book recognises as criminal to the extent of murder or manslaughter whereas we've had relatively light penalties for those who cause the death in a very foreseeable almost reckless way I would argue by supplying drugs to them that would eventually cause their death. So there's a moral and a legal imperative for aligning the penalties for such drug suppliers and to do justice for such drug users in those situations. As opposed to the arguments made on the other side of the House regarding prevention versus deterrence I just want to make a quick comment which is to say that whereas the argument is frequently made by those on the other side of politics including in relation to this bill that harsher penalties do not necessarily deter would-be criminals—that may or may not be true. I don't think it's as straightforward a matter even so far as that goes but it's worth noting that there is a preventative element as opposed to a deterrent element such that a drug supplier—a dealer in common parlance—for the period of time that he or she is prevented physically by being detained at Her Majesty's pleasure from continuing to ply their trade of such misery—that's actually a useful thing to society. They in turn can be rehabilitated not necessarily from a perspective of physical drug addiction but in terms of their ways perhaps other shortcomings in their life or lifestyle such as a lack of education such as a lack of opportunities within society a lack of connection a lack of purpose in their life and so on. So I will draw to a conclusion my response very shortly by simply noting again the hard work of Simeon Brown and others who have advocated in this space. I think that he has done a wonderful job of bringing this to the attention of the House. I hope perhaps in vain that it might receive the support that it deserves and that the people of New Zealand who are affected in this way certainly deserve and indeed so desperately need. Thank you. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): This is a split call. It will go to Labour first. I call Dr Duncan Webb—five minutes."