Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): There's a very simple question for Parliament with this bill: is the penalty of two years' imprisonment adequate for people that are supplying and distributing psychoactive substances that have killed 45 fellow New Zealanders in the last 12 months? My colleague Simeon Brown has brought this bill to the Parliament to extend that to eight years. Given the epidemic that we have with these substances around New Zealand I totally support the measure in the bill and I'm deeply disappointed that both the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Health and the Labour Party and the Green Party are opposing this practical measure against something that is having such a devastating impact on communities up and down New Zealand. In my own community if you go to A & E if you talk to the GPs if you talk to the ambulance officers and if you talk to those in our schools you'll hear that these psychoactive substances are wreaking havoc in communities all over New Zealand. Actually it is in our poorest and our most vulnerable communities where these substances are doing the most harm. I like the sponsor of this bill want to draw the House's attention to the submission we heard at the Justice Committee from Mr Lewis Jones. I've been in Parliament for a while. I've heard a lot of select committee submissions. No person on any select committee could help but feel compassion and be moved by the tragic story of the death of his son Calum—the way in which he got access to these psychoactive substances the tragic story of his life being trapped by them the desperate attempts of his family to get support—and I am angry because Labour members of the committee blocked National as recorded in the minutes from just giving a human dimension from the loss of that one sad life to be able to tell the very human story that's relevant to the debate on this bill. I want members opposite to reflect on the powerful submission that we received from the Salvation Army. Now the Salvation Army aren't some politically biased organisation. In our communities up and down New Zealand they do more work at the coalface of dealing with those people whose lives are wrecked by these sorts of substances. The Salvation Army does not come from some of that punitive or reactionary culture. They are sensible practical people who back this bill. I found the arguments from the Minister of Justice against this bill to be nothing less than pathetic. He said that the answer was not penalties alone and of course he's right. Of course we need education. Of course we need to make sure that there is proper treatment and drug rehabilitation services across the board. But you don't need a bill in Parliament to be able to fund improved services. You don't provide education programmes by having a bill in Parliament. The one thing we do do in Parliament is set down what the criminal law is and what behaviour in this society is totally unacceptable. The peddling of these substances is unacceptable and that's why we should pass this bill. I also want to draw to Parliament's attention the well-informed and passionate submission from Mr Paul Quigley a toxicologist. It was not some sort of emotional reaction. He's somebody who's an expert in this area who equally said that our current law is out of step and that the very weak penalty of only two years for these substances is inadequate. I was particularly concerned by the statement from the Minister of Justice that sent the willies up my spine when he told the House today—and I quote—Penalties have no effect at all."—penalties have no effect at all. If penalties have no effect at all why does this Parliament say that those that commit murder must do life in prison? Why does this Parliament set down penalties for rape and for other criminal offences if we have a Minister of Justice who says that penalties do not matter I say that the Minister of Justice is out of touch with New Zealanders. When we heard evidence at the select committee that for a substance like marijuana which currently has a penalty of eight years how can any member in this House say that two years for these far more dangerous substances is somehow just and is somehow fair? I equally want to draw the House's attention to the information that we heard at the select committee about the number of people that are presenting in accident and emergency clinics all over New Zealand from taking these substances. Yes there have been 45 deaths in the last year but there are literally hundreds and hundreds of cases that are coming before our accident and emergency clinics. And here's the rub: if someone is a manufacturer and is making money out of peddling these substances—a single batch of these psychoactive substances could kill a dozen people; in fact there's evidence that some of the bad batches may have killed more than that many New Zealanders—how can any member of this House reasonably say that the maximum penalty for manufacturing and distributing those substances is a period of only two years? I do not think any member of this House could look in the mirror and say that that is a fair maximum penalty. What we also observed with this bill were the huge contradictions within the Government in their approach to these sorts of law and order issues. On the one hand we have the extreme positions of the Greens and the Labour Party opposing this bill and we have another party within Government actually wanting to go further from eight years to 14 years. Doesn't that just describe so aptly the lack of direction? No wonder justice policy in New Zealand is in a mess when you have got that level of disagreement within the Government parties on such a key area. Effectively you've got some members in the Government parties—the Labour and the Green Party—defending having just two years for the manufacture and distribution of these substances while you have another governing party saying that it should be 14 years. How can that in any way represent a coherent approach to justice and to these issues around the harm from psychoactive substances? So members on this side of the House do not say that penalties being appropriate is the only part of the logical response that we as a country should be taking to these psychoactive substances. Of course we need to do more in the area of treatment of course we need to do more in the work of customs and of course we need to do more with our health and our drug rehabilitation services but I say to this Parliament: if we are serious about stopping the ongoing tragedy of so many young people's lives being lost this Parliament needs to send a signal—a signal that we will lock up those people that make money out of peddling drugs that are causing so much harm in our community. I strongly endorse the words of Simeon Brown and the work that he has done on this bill. I am absolutely delighted that we have the parliamentary numbers to ensure that this bill is passed because it is time we took this problem seriously."