Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to speak to the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill. I start by acknowledging the member in whose name this bill is brought to Parliament—Simeon Brown—and also those who have supported its passage thus far including victims; various campaigners in support of this proposed legislation including in many cases the victims themselves and their families; and other members of this House who have chosen to support this bill. I won't be politically partisan so I won't be naming particular political parties in this but I do acknowledge the good intent and ideals being displayed on many sides of this House tonight. But certainly some arguments I have considerably more sympathy with than others. Taking the opportunity to perhaps wrap up some of the debate somewhat if I may—being the final speaker—I'd like to touch on a few key distinctions that I think will help to clarify some of the impassioned arguments that we've heard back and forth tonight. A series of distinctions as follows: the necessary versus the sufficient suppliers versus users justice versus health perpetrators versus victims other drugs as compared with psychoactive substances and morality versus legality along with deterrence versus prevention. Touching on each of those briefly in turn and to start with the necessary versus the sufficient I don't believe it's been claimed by the author of this bill or indeed others who are supporting it that it is some kind of silver bullet. It's not said to be the be all and end all of measures that are needed to attack the problem that we have in this nation but rather simply one measure and in that sense it is something that we believe to be necessary albeit not entirely sufficient in itself. The second is to acknowledge the distinction but also at times the area where suppliers and users do intersect and I acknowledge the sophisticated argument and the experience on which Louisa Wall has based her remarks in that regard. I think—acknowledging that in cases where suppliers and users will be one and the same people—we've got the option either to carry on as we are or perhaps to regard the opportunity to treat the matter seriously in a way that says that rehabilitation will be part of the time that they would spend detained so that they cannot incur further damage against themselves and others. So I understand there are philosophical differences in this House in that regard but if we do regard the time that people who peddle these drugs and who also use it as an opportunity for rehabilitation not only in respect of that addiction but in other respects in which their lives are broken whether it be lack of education relationship breakdown homelessness and so forth then I think we'll be better off. So that is the approach personally that I would favour in that regard. Justice versus health: well it seems to me this is a false choice in that we do not need to choose entirely one or the other and that relates really to the point regarding deterrence versus prevention. It was remarked by I think the Hon David Clark that the advice had been at least from some submitters—including the Police Association he said—that increasing the penalty will not have a deterrent effect for those who would supply these drugs. Well that may or may not be true but it is true that while behind bars those who have been supplying the drug are prevented from doing so further at least at that time. Of course there is also the element of punishment which is by no means the sole purpose of our criminal justice system but it is at least one as was acknowledged and highlighted by my colleague the Hon Mark Mitchell. It seems to me that it would be artificial to regard a distinction between deaths caused by the supply of substances that are known to have the effects of ending life as different from other ways in which life can be ended such that murder and manslaughter would be the result. So to increase penalties such that we have something of a level playing field in that regard has a certain logical ring to it. Finally I would just like to wrap up by challenging on a logical basis some of the comments made on the other side of the House about their belief that increasing penalties will not have a deterrent effect or indeed a preventative effect. Well if that is the case then I challenge those members to argue for—perhaps by way of Supplementary Order Paper later in this legislative process—actually reducing the current penalty such that if two years' imprisonment should not go to eight years or indeed further as I understand others might be proposing then perhaps—Chlöe Swarbrick: No it's that we need a different approach. CHRIS PENK: The different approach that the member advocates might be to actually reduce it further. So I look forward to that potential engagement if that is the best approach that those members believe to be in the interests of our nation and in the interests of those who are caught up in this awful practice and I join other members of the House on this side of the House and indeed the others opposite who are supporting the bill in commending this bill at its second reading to the House.