Ball DarrochDARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you Madam Chair. I think going through in clauses is somewhat irrelevant because this whole entire bill is about clause 4 obviously and in the original bill it's about changing the maximum penalty for suppliers and for manufacturers from two years and what Simeon Brown is wanting to do is move it through to eight years. The reason for that—and it's understood: the intent of why Simeon Brown wants to do that—is because of a couple of reasons but we'll get into the technicalities in a second.If you're looking at comparing psychoactive drugs—and in particular the synthetic cannabis which is the genesis of this bill and the reasoning behind what this bill is about and where it came from—and what is currently in the Misuse of Drugs Act and what we currently classify as hazardous drugs for very good reasons there really is no comparison. I think one interesting point to note on the maximum prison sentences is that during the speeches in this House on the Psychoactive Substances Bill there was very little if any at all discussion or debate on the maximum penalties for supplying manufacturing and peddling these kinds of drugs. And I think it's also important to note that this really isn't about the drugs themselves. I know that might be contrary to logic but it's not actually about the drugs themselves because the Psychoactive Substances Act is actually about the licensing of a product. And when something becomes illegal it's because it's not legally licenced and gone through the loopholes.What we're dealing with and why it's such a complex answer is because it's not easily identifiable what those drugs are and when a manufacturer comes up with a drug they can change it in a heartbeat and then reapply to go through the licencing process. So it's not as easy as just willy-nilly putting something in and identifying it as a drug in the Misuse of Drugs Act like the rest of the illegal drugs are; it's about the process and the process that the people who supply this drug and manufacture it have found a way around.I think that we've had enough discussion in this House in regards to the issues between the users—those who are addicted—and those who are manufacturing supplying and peddling this drug. I think that it's a very very important clarification or difference between identifying a different approach that we need to take that we haven't really been able to tackle over the years since we've had this problem in regards to how we address the problem with the users and those addicted and those who are peddling and manufacturing this drug.I'd like to highlight a couple of the most important examples of why New Zealand First is supporting this bill. But not only that; we believe that the original eight years as a maximum sentence for supplying and manufacturing and dealing this drug doesn't go quite far enough. We need to increase that to 14 years and that's not just a willy-nilly number; that is a realisation that this drug is not equivalent to class C drugs which is what the eight years is comparing it to. It is actually closer to a more serious level of drug and class of drug: class B.When we're talking about the maximum jail sentence we need to understand—and we'll hear it I'm sure from members on this side of the Chamber especially—that many of the problems arise from those who are addicted to the drug and those who need to sell the drug to feed their own habit and those who are in certain circumstances that can be judged by some as being sympathetic to their cause. The fact is that if you look at this bill in isolation what it does—because it's a very very simple bill and a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that New Zealand First is putting in—is it gives the judge the tool to enforce a maximum sentence.Now everybody in this committee knows that very very rarely does a judge dish out a maximum sentence for any crime really but especially with crimes around drugs and involving drugs. So when they do and if they do we have to understand that this bill is not talking about or affecting those who are addicted—those who the judge and our system can see have issues that have perhaps led them to the situation that they're in. The judges still have discretion. So when you look at that for what it is and its facts the only time that this bill and the SOP that New Zealand First is putting forward for the maximum sentence will actually be enacted will be for the worst of the offenders—the worst of those people who care not about the number of people who die. They care not about the effects that this poison has on not only the individual but their families and society and the community as a whole. They don't care about that. These drug dealers and these manufacturers only care about themselves and they want more people to be addicted. They don't care what kind of a poison they create. They don't care about the side effects.The judge has that discretion. If the judge decides that it is the worst-case scenario that's when the maximum sentence will be applied at the discretion of the judge. I'd like to highlight what I mean. There are a couple of very recent news articles and they identify the problem very clearly. This one was dated August of this year and it states Police arrest three men in ongoing synthetic cannabis investigation … Three men including a patched Head Hunters gang member have been arrested in West Auckland". This is not talking about those who are addicted to the poison to synthetic cannabis. They're not talking about the users; they're talking about those who don't care: the gang members who are peddling this stuff.Hawke's Bay is another one. In September of this year: "Hawke's Bay police losing the battle to synthetic drug dealers … Area commander Inspector Dave Greig admits police are losing the battle against [these drugs and the dealers] as gangs ramp up recruitment and become more sophisticated. He says the Mongrel Mob is responsible for the supply of almost all of the synthetics." I want to repeat that: "He says the Mongrel Mob is responsible for the supply of almost all of the synthetics." Now if anybody wants to stand up in this Chamber and say that this piece of legislation that directly covers what the title actually says which is "(Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution)"—that's what's in the title. It doesn't have "Users or Those Addicted"; it says "(Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution)".Inspector Greig says "addiction is a health not a justice problem and he is focused on bringing down the big-time dealers."—agreed. New Zealand First has always had the stance that for those who are users and who are addicted this is a health issue but what also needs to be understood is the context in which the dealers and manufacturers and suppliers of this drug are working what environment they're working in within this legislation. When you compare the two years that it is now versus the drugs that we've got in just the class C maximum which is eight years it's little wonder why these drug dealers are manufacturing this and giving it to the people on the street."