Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you for the instruction Madam Chair. I look forward to debating clause 7. I think for me clause 7 when we look at licensing actually defines what an absolute shambles this bill is. It is absolutely silent on licensing and actually raises more questions than answers.I've got to feel for the Minister of Health. I mean he's a new Minister and he's up against the likes of Dr Shane Reti and the Hon Michael Woodhouse two members with exemplary careers in health before coming into politics. It sort of reminds me of an up-and-coming number 8 who probably would have thought they'd make the All Blacks and then they realise they're in the era of Richie McCaw; I really feel for the Minister who's going to be overshadowed by these two. This bill demonstrates it. How embarrassing to actually be silent on some key areas like licensing. As my colleague Dr Shane Reti outlined why would the public not want to know the licensing regime that will define the character that we want of people holding these licences? I mean in the Health Committee we even discovered that we weren't going to even use the word commercial" for cultivation. How we have a party like New Zealand First advocating for a bill that won't even define cultivation as commercial and that will allow for the first time loose-leaf cannabis being smoked in this country is beyond belief. Now working in the select committee what I wrote down is it's always going to be the tension between greater access to high-quality medicinal cannabis products to ease suffering and having the right regulatory and legislative controls in place. And where would that play out—that's in fact in clause 7—around licensing? Why are we so silent on this? The Hon Michael Woodhouse posed the question: why are we not giving the public confidence that we know what we are doing? Well in fact I think that was a rhetorical question. In fact we don't know what we're doing and that's because the Minister won't allow this schedule or the licensing to be known to this House and to be debated by the House. Let's take one example: are we going to allow production cultivation and manufacture close to a school? We've all probably got rose-tinted glasses on that under this licence there'll be fields of benign cannabis plants growing in the New Zealand rural areas. In fact a lot of this production I would guess is probably a lot of hot-boxing in warehouses and factories that are probably in light industrial spaces. Are we going to have to come back in time to come to change the Education Act to put exclusion zones around schools because parents and teachers and pupils are up in arms because these are nearby? Why are we not allowed to put words like "commercial" next to "cultivation"? Why are we not allowed to discuss the licensing regime? I think all the questions that Dr Shane Reti has posed are answered in his Supplementary Order Papers so it would be interesting to hear from the Minister why he doesn't think they are good ideas. What's the problem with cross-party working? We do it in climate change. We do it in child poverty. Unfortunately for this Minister we're not going to do it in mental health. We're not going to do it around medicinal cannabis. What's the point of turning up to a select committee and hearing thousands of submissions if we're not going to work across the table? I think the people on this side of the House who have a health background know that what we do in health is we get the stakeholders round the table and we work through it. And what we have left is more questions than answers for clause 7. Thank you Madam Chair."