9. Question No. 9—JusticeSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of JusticeQuestion No. 9—Justice9. SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Justice: Is the maximum sentence of two years for the supply of psychoactive drugs a sufficient penalty when the coroner has reported up to 45 deaths over the last 12 months due to these drugs and St John Ambulance has reported up to 30 callouts a week related to these drugs?SPEAKER: I have received the warning of the possibility of a longer than usual answer.Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): In response to the factual assertions in the member's question there have been six confirmed cases since May 2014 where the coroner found that synthetic cannabis use was the primary cause of the person's death. Since 1 June 2017 there have been approximately 40 to 45 cases nationally which the Chief Coroner has said provisionally appear to be attributable to synthetic cannabis toxicity. These cases are active as the final cause of death is yet to be determined. Increasing the penalty for supply of psychoactive substances is unlikely to deter psychoactive drug use. I've seen no credible evidence that supports increased penalties resulting in reduced rates of offending. This Government is taking a harm reduction approach to the issue and is looking to do something more effective than simply raising the penalty.Simeon Brown: So if the Minister says that he's taking a harm reduction approach does that also mean he's taking a penalty reduction approach?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No the two are not the same. But I think the member seems to operate under the illusion that regular users of psychoactive substances and other illicit substances—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. This I think most members of the House agree is a very serious issue and I think most members of the House actually want to hear both the questions and the answers. A barrage of interjections is not helping with that.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Thank you Mr Speaker. The point I was making is that I think the problem with the underlying principle of that member's question is that he seems to assume that users of these substances sit around each week waiting for the latest edition of the New Zealand Gazette to see what law changes have been made and what penalty changes there have been; they do not. This is a street drug for people looking for a cheap street high. It needs an approach that addresses the street life of those people to create a safe environment for them to deal with their problem.Simeon Brown: Does the Minister understand the difference between a drug dealer and a drug supplier and does he believe it is just that dealers of cannabis can receive eight years in prison while synthetic drug dealers can receive only two years?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes I fully understand the difference between those two things. What that member doesn't seem to understand—and the advice that this Government has had from the Ministry of Justice from police and from others on the front line—is actually when it comes to street drugs like synthetic cannabis they are one and the same. Suppliers are sellers and sellers are users.Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Minister aware of any evidence that shows increasing penalties will reduce drug harm?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The advice that this Government has received is that just increasing penalties is the least effective approach to dealing with illicit substances that cause harm. Actually the approach that countries around the world have now adopted and this Government is going to adopt is a harm reduction approach.Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Minister agree with former Prime Minister Helen Clark who recently said—Brett Hudson: New Zealanders do.Hon Jacqui Dean: Gosh that's something.Chlöe Swarbrick:—that the only people who benefit from a prohibitionist approach to drugs are the criminal underground?SPEAKER: Before it's answered could I have an indication of which members interjected during that question?Brett Hudson: Mr Speaker that was me.SPEAKER: And?Hon Jacqui Dean: I think it appears it might have been me. Thank you.SPEAKER: Right.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Naturally it's always difficult to disagree with the former Prime Minister Helen Clark. I'm aware that she is a key member of an international drug harm reduction body. I met their chair recently Ruth Dreifuss a senior politician from Switzerland to talk about these issues. They have been very clear that around the world Governments are taking an approach that is about seeking harm reduction which usually—or in fact almost inevitably—also leads to less use. That is better for communities and safer for people who are prone to using these substances. Simeon Brown: How can he be critical of National for seeking the more appropriate maximum penalty of eight years for people dealing in psychoactive substances when his own Government colleagues in New Zealand First say he is wrong and want 14 years?SPEAKER: Order! Well the first part of the question was out of order and the second part of the question was out of order because he doesn't have responsibility.Simeon Brown: Will the Minister agree to meet with the dozens of parents who have lost sons and daughters to these psychoactive drugs like Lewis and Lorraine Jones and explain why he is dismissing their plea for tougher penalties for the drug dealers who have profited from their tragedies?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I have met the families of users of these substances and they have all agreed with me universally that the one thing that this Government needs to do is to provide facilities and places where these people—mainly young people many who are disengaged some who have been thrown out of their own homes some who have left home for a variety of reasons—a place where they can go and get their issues dealt with their addictions dealt with and a safe place for them to disclose without the risk of prosecution either of them or the people seeking to treat them.Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Minister agree with the recommendations of the 2011 Law Commission report that New Zealand's drug legislation should be repealed and replaced with health-focused harm reduction legislation?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I think it is time for this Parliament and this country in fact to face up to—after decades and decades of a drug law regime that clearly is not reducing drug use and reducing drug harm to look at alternatives. Many other countries have gone down that path with very positive effects. We should have a good close examination of it. It would be good if all members in the House could be involved with that. We all share the same objective of reducing harm but we seem to have different ways of getting there. We need to do something better and different to what we're doing now.Chlöe Swarbrick: So then does the Minister agree that the best way to reduce drug harm is not to perpetuate prohibition but to regulate and to resource services that are focused on reducing demand?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The latter proposition the member puts of providing resourcing to reduce harm is certainly the priority view that this Government takes but in the end it's going to take all of us to reach an agreement on what's actually going to reduce harm and reduce illicit drug use.Simeon Brown: So is the Minister saying by arguing for a drug harm reduction policy that the Government will also look to remove or reduce penalties for drug dealers?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: There will always be a place obviously for suitable penalties for criminal behaviour but if the objective right now in the view of the deaths of young people using toxic substances that they should not be using is to reduce harm let's find the way to reduce harm provide the environment for them to stop using to address their issues rather than thinking and puffing up our chest that writing another statute that extends penalties is going to make a difference. It never has before; it won't now.