Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to speak on this bill tonight. I'd like to congratulate the originator of the bill Julie Anne Genter and the member who currently has it in her hands Chlöe Swarbrick.Over the past recess I had the opportunity to explore and spend some time in US jurisdictions that have a large history a long history of medicinal cannabis. On Christmas Day I found myself in Eugene Oregon a liberal state that has medicinal cannabis and also has recreational cannabis. On New Year's Day I was in Camarillo California which has had medicinal cannabis for quite a while and on that day Proposition 64 came in which made it recreational. In between then I was in Nevada another liberal state with recreational and medicinal cannabis. My contribution tonight then will be a reflection of several things: first of all 20 years of clinical practice and then my observations from speaking to colleagues and communities in these environments. I want to make some opening remarks. I said yesterday—and I want to reinforce—that I am very pleased that medicinal cannabis is part of our conversation. It is timely. There's nothing to be afraid of. It's a good conversation to have. It sits medicinal cannabis alongside other medicines. Let's look at these other medicines. Other medicines have a known source a known production line a known manufacturing programme. Other medicines have a known dose response. They have known drug-drug interactions. They have known side effects. Other medicines are dispensed in known places at known times by known people. Other medicines are in their final form. They're not in a midway sort of form. Leaf could be a midway sort of form because you could infuse it you could smoke it and you could bake it. It's not the final form that you may take it in.But many of these medicines if they are available are expensive. I understand that and so I think part of this bill—certainly the area of self-cultivation—says Look how can we get past the expense of these products?" If we look at the pharmaceutical spectrum if you like for regulation we would have the pharmaceutical-grade products at one end and what this bill proposes—self-cultivation—at the other. In the middle is something interesting—the high-standard pharmaceuticals high-standard grade pharmaceuticals or you might also call them near pharmaceuticals. I'm really hoping that Mr Clark's bill—the medicinal scheme—will talk to these because the bill's intent talked about setting high standards. This near-medicinal group which is about 25 percent cheaper than standard high-grade pharmaceuticals could well be very suitable for the purposes that this member is looking for.There are four main parts to this bill and I'll talk to some of them. First of all the qualifying conditions—briefly what's in and what's out. What's in doesn't make sense to me—chronic immune order conditions. If you look through all the 52 states those that have THC containing medicinal cannabis not one of them has chronic immune conditions as their qualifying criteria—not one. Too broad. There are occasional immune conditions but not immune system disorders. It's too big. What's not in—every state except Maryland has cancer on that list. This bill does not. So I've got some issues about what's in and what's not.The second part of this bill talks to a medical recommendation. I commented yesterday that that's part of the weakness of the Minister's bill—that there is no clear indication from a medical practitioner that it's useful.The third part to this is the cultivation possession and use of cannabis. I've talked to that and I've talked to some of the self-challenges that I have around self-cultivation around quality and around control standardisation and the alternative I'm proposing is to look at near pharmaceuticals. I also have issues with the fourth part which is around immediate relatives or nominated persons.I support this discussion. I will not be supporting this bill on the basis of too broad qualifying criteria in one area not inclusive of cancer in another; a lack of quality consistency and monitoring around self-cultivation; and a cultivation net that includes immediate relatives and nominated persons. That is just too big. But I do support this discussion. I believe the Government bill is the forum to have this discussion and I think we can expand it a bit to cover some of these things. It was part of the discussion we had in the select committee this morning of can we pick up parts of this bill in the select committee under the Government's current legislation. We're exploring that. I hope we can. It's a good and timely discussion. Thank you Mr Speaker."