Coleman JonathanHon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote): Thank you Mr Speaker. This is the second of two bills that Parliament is debating this week both of which relate to medicinal cannabis and I want to congratulate Chlöe Swarbrick the Green member for bringing this bill to the House and for having it drawn from the ballot prior to that and for the chance to debate what is a very important issue to thousands of New Zealanders. I also acknowledge Julie Anne Genter who is now a Minister but was the person who originally put the bill into the ballot.Now I know of course that this is something that is being hotly debated around the country. As the member said in her speech there have been many high-profile figures who've gone public with their views on medicinal cannabis and their personal experiences of resorting to medicinal cannabis in the most high-profile cases relating to terminal illness. I also want to acknowledge that there are very many New Zealanders with a range of chronic conditions and debilitating pain who are seeking relief from that state and very naturally have an interest in obtaining access to medicinal cannabis. Of course as we've heard over the course of these debates that access is currently fairly limited. But there is no question that internationally the views on medicinal cannabis are liberalising and that is happening at a fairly rapid rate.However let's be clear. Cannabis is not a drug to be taken lightly. I think everyone in this House would agree with that. Most people here would have had experience of people in their social circle wider life or indeed in their professional life who have abused cannabis and we have seen some of the consequences of that. In a certain group of individuals it can greatly exacerbate a predilection or an underlying disposition towards mental disorder. So I think no one would disagree with the proposition that cannabis is actually a drug that society should not take lightly.The member who has brought this bill to the House gave a very fluent quite emotive speech citing many examples of patients seeking access and benefiting from medicinal cannabis and indeed those are quite compelling stories when you listen to them. But I think what's really important is to focus on the bill itself and compare that to the Government bill that we debated yesterday. While I am no supporter of this Government I have to say there were some things to commend in that bill that was discussed yesterday.So I think there's a general mood in this House to allow controlled access to medicinal marijuana but that has to be done in a regulated fashion. It has to be done in a way where we are sure that there are controls in place where we know what preparations patients are receiving and where we can understand the evidence base. This is an area where there is an emerging evidence base but it's still pretty early on.Medicinal cannabis encompasses a wide range of preparations right from those that have undergone rigorous clinical testing—in this instance in New Zealand Sativex which is used for the relief of spasticity in multiple sclerosis—right through to people wanting to access loose-leaf marijuana to smoke cannabis in order to relieve their symptoms. So there's often quite a bit of confusion actually about what medicinal cannabis encompasses.But if we look at this bill it's very important to see what this bill will actually do. Unfortunately this bill is deeply flawed because what it allows is for anyone who has what is called a qualifying condition to access cannabis to grow their own cannabis or to nominate a relative or any other person to grow cannabis on their behalf. That is where I have a problem with this bill. There's no mention there of controls. There's no mention of regulation. There are just some coverall provisions that talk about qualifying health conditions including chronic back or other pain". Now I can tell you as a doctor I've dealt with many many patients who have come to see me with chronic pain. Pain is one of the most difficult areas of medicine to get to the bottom of to manage and to treat. But also it's something that's pretty hard to disprove. If someone comes and tells you they've got pain how can you really assess the true extent and degree of that pain?But it also says even more broadly—and you could drive a truck right through the middle of this—that a "qualifying health condition" is also "any other medical condition that a medical practitioner certifies may benefit from supplementary plant cannabinoids." "Any other medical condition"—so it's up to the doctor to make a call. Of course we've got great confidence in our health professionals in New Zealand. I mean we've got a strict process of registration. There are continuing medical education requirements. So by and large we trust the health profession. But the problem is that that is placing a huge onus on any doctor. Most doctors are good; a few are bad and end up maybe being expelled from the profession. But what I can tell you is that doctors are going to hate this bill because what they will have is enormous pressure placed on them by patients to prescribe cannabis. You see that in terms of other painkilling medications.So what you'll get is you'll get a group of doctors who absolutely refuse to have anything to do with medicinal cannabis and that actually at a certain level would be unfortunate. Then you'd get a very small group hopefully who would be known as the prescribers—the person to go and see if you want cannabis. And then you'd get the middle group who with all best intentions have enormous pressure placed on them to prescribe medicinal cannabis. This will be a doctor's nightmare.But also what's really concerning about this bill—and I know it's not the member's intent—is this is going to be de facto decriminalisation. Basically it is going to mean that anyone can grow as much cannabis as they want for the treatment of one of these qualifying conditions and it just needs a doctor's say-so. Miss Swarbrick says there are similar schemes in Canada and Australia. Well when you look at the detail of those schemes they are tightly regulated. This bill is silent on the supply. In Canada you actually have to go and get your seeds from a regulated supplier. There's nothing in here about a regulated supplier. This does not create a regulated market for medicinal cannabis based on a body of evidence. This is just carte blanche for patients and their nominated people to grow cannabis for what is a very vague qualifying condition.The other thing that the bill does is it confirms that cannabidiol will no longer be a controlled substance. Well the National Government actually had already done that through regulation and indeed it is in the Government bill. Much as I'm critical of this current Government and much as they also left a lot out of the bill that was before the House yesterday what that bill yesterday had was a regulation-making power. That regulation-making power in the Government bill sets the groundwork for a regulatory scheme to create a market place that will increase the access for people who need medicinal cannabis products and it will mean that they can get products that have been approved on the basis of the available evidence to help relieve their debilitating conditions. That is the way to go.The other thing about the Government bill is the select committee process will allow all those who have an interest in this particular bill to submit to the select committee and have their case heard. So I think—much as I'm no fan of this Government—that the bill that the Government brought to the House yesterday will enable that public discussion that thousands of New Zealanders wish to have. This member's bill currently before the House is deeply flawed. It will create carte blanche for people to grow whatever cannabis they want and to use it. It will be decriminalisation by stealth and on that basis National does not support this bill."