Dyson Ruth: Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dyson Ruth: Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4857] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I begin my contribution to this debate by saying that the Green Party has had an extraordinarily high amount of good luck with members’ bills lately. I do not know what it is those members are doing but if they could spread it around just a little it would be greatly appreciated. 
I want to acknowledge Metiria as the member in charge of this bill. I think it can be really difficult when one has inherited a bill particularly after such a long period of time. This bill has been hanging around for ages. As Dr Hutchison just alluded to there have been debates at the Health Committee on two occasions on the issue of pharmaceutically based cannabis and this bill has stayed to the side of those. 
The Health Committee inquiry 5 years ago was quite rigorous and I hope that my colleague the Hon Steve Chadwick is able to take a call. She chaired that committee and I know that within our caucus we certainly had a lot of very useful and intelligent debate on the issue. As Dr Hutchison noted also our select committee has just referred back to the House a petition that did not go as far as this bill has intended but certainly recommended changes to the current regime. 
A lot of people do not realise what the current position is in relation to the regime around the medicinal use of cannabis in New Zealand. Sativex is available on prescription from a general practitioner and when endorsed by a specialist. The Health Committee recommended that the threshold for accessing Sativex be reduced. It is horrifically expensive. If people have been ill for quite some time they are unlikely to be in paid work—even part-time work let alone full-time work—so their finances are depleted. They already carry the huge burden of illness and pain and on top of that we charge them like a wounded bull. 
Our select committee felt unanimously that that was unfair and meant that the only pain relief or the only relief from nausea for many people was just not available. It is financially inaccessible. We suggested that the Medicines Act be amended to include Sativex so that it could be available on prescription from a general practitioner and would not need that higher level of endorsement. 
Although most people talk about the primary purpose of medicinal cannabis as being pain relief it is also very useful in easing muscle spasms. That is a very common condition and one that is very hard to treat otherwise and it can have a very detrimental effect on the quality of life for people. As my colleague Lianne Dalziel mentioned it is also an appetite stimulant on some occasions for some conditions. 
So in New Zealand we already have pharmaceutically produced cannabis-based medicines. This bill is saying that that regime is quite onerous and quite expensive. Sativex is expensive in terms of accessing general practitioners and specialists and it is also expensive to access literally as a nation. Other countries have looked at this issue and said: “Well why don’t we just have the right for people to grow their own cannabis for medicinal purposes?” and that is really what this bill proposes. 
I agree with my colleague Lianne Dalziel that if the member had the opportunity to quietly rip up the bill start again and submit a newly drafted bill I am sure the member may have done it. But it is not beyond the ability of the select committee—I have seen it done on many occasions—to throw out the entire bill except for the point of it and rewrite it in language that members of the select committee are all comfortable with and certainly have learnt on the basis of the submissions. 
Likewise in respect of the other point my colleague Lianne Dalziel made in regard to the Law Commission review I do not think it would be beyond the ability of the select committee—as a member I would certainly support it and I think Dr Hutchison would as well—to park this bill until the Law Commission results were progressed a bit and then having heard what the Law Commission is doing progress this bill. Is it way out of keeping? It may be the case that the Law Commission looks at it and we could just pick up those submissions and learn from them or the commission may look at it rigorously and decide it is not something we should progress. 
In my view Parliament should never be afraid of a controversial debate. We should never be afraid to learn from international evidence and from what other countries are doing even if we disagree with them. I will support the referral of this bill with all its faults to a select committee because I am not afraid of the controversy around that debate.