Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Mangai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I just wanted to refer to the debate that I believe we're supposed to be having with regard to new clause 5A.Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Now earlier in this year we had an instance where that member had her laptop on the top of the table with an offensive slogan on it and it was ruled inappropriate for this Chamber. That slogan remains on the laptop and is again presented in this Chamber. I would ask you to confirm that does not happen anymore. Thank you.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I thank the member for immediately remedying that issue. Thank you.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: You're welcome Mr Chair. That had been the reason that I'd oriented my laptop away from the member who seemed to be offended by the slogan. I just wanted to refer to clause 5A which obviously amends section 8. This is actually the clause which is regarding certification of a person requiring palliation which I believe the Minister has clarified—Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do apologise for the slight delay because I was reflecting on what the member had just said—that Mr van de Molen was offended by the ruling. Now Mr van de Molen was very clear that it wasn't an offence. There is no advertising allowed in this House and I think that should be pointed out to Ms Sroubek who was frankly challenging your ruling—CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Did you just call me Sroubek?Hon Michael Woodhouse: Swarbrick sorry. [Interruption] CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! I thank the Hon Michael Woodhouse. He is correct and I should have addressed the issue. I didn't quite hear exactly what the member said but really a final warning: do not comment on rulings of the Chair thank you.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Understood Mr Chair. So bringing back the debate to—Hon Clare Curran: A point of clarification.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No.Hon Clare Curran: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Sorry Mr Chair. I'm seeking a point of clarification.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No. Points of order are not for clarification. If you have a point of order please come to the point of order.Hon Clare Curran: Certainly Mr Chair. I'm trying to understand with your permission what the original ruling was that the member was commenting on. Was it the fact that a slogan a party slogan which is basically as we've got here was being displayed on a computer screen?CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member can read the Hansard records.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Thank you Mr Chair. So bringing the debate back to new clause 5A amending section 8 regarding certifying that a person requires palliation. I just wanted to clarify a few points that were raised particularly by members of the Opposition. Many times I heard referral to loose leaf. Loose leaf is not mentioned anywhere in this draft legislation in this piece of legislation. It is not mentioned anywhere at all. With regard to their concerns about the potential inclusion of it that is something which will be discerned by the expert group that will be created with regard to the delegated powers to the Ministry of Health. I'd also like to point out that I'm somewhat confused by the National Party's assertions that on the one hand they want to allow experts to create these regulations but on the other hand they want politicians to create these regulations. So if that could be clarified for me; that would be incredibly useful.I would also like to state that there seems to be the need to reconcile the points around a medicinal cannabis card and certification from a medical practitioner. I also just wanted to refer to the submission from the Medical Council of New Zealand whereby they provided a statement on medical certification and stated that As a doctor you're expected to sign a variety of medical certificates that range in purpose from confirming sickness to certifying death and are required by receiving agencies which include employers insurers ACC and Government departments." It seems therefore to be a matter of course that doctors and nurse practitioners provide certification about the state that patients are in. Notably this clause is not about certifying that someone can use medicinal cannabis. It is about certifying that somebody requires palliation and that then serves as a criminal defence for using medicinal cannabis.I also wanted to speak to the points raised around smoking in public and around the fact that we're somehow decriminalising medicinal cannabis. I wanted to refer the members who raised such concerns to the submission of the New Zealand Police at the select committee stage at the Health Committee who stated that they use their discretion presently in going about prosecuting people who are using medicinal cannabis. But notably unfortunately the most recent statistics that we have on the consumption of cannabis in this country come from I believe the 2012-2013 Ministry of Health survey which demonstrates that 400000 New Zealanders are consuming cannabis on an annual basis and 42 percent to 43 percent of those are using it for medical purposes already. We currently have a state of play whereby this is existing in the shadows. Do we not want greater medical oversight of this situation? So I'd love to hear the member's responses to those points."