Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to address a number of the points made in the debate so far on the issue of the regulatory regime.Firstly Matt Doocey raised the question about details and wanting to know what the regulation would look like and he put the case that Dr Shane Reti's attempts at this ought to be sufficient for us to pass this through and codify it in law. There was a debate about this in various other stages and clauses of the debate so I am going to repeat myself a little because this was covered particularly in clause 5A around—Matt Doocey: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. We come to this Chamber wanting the ability to debate clauses—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Yes and your point is?Matt Doocey: I've been in this debate today and last night and I do get frustrated that every time I make a call and a submission like my colleagues do the repeated narrative is that the Minister's deciding—CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): That is not a point of order. [Interruption] That is not a point of order. [Interruption] Sit down Mr Doocey. That is not a point of order.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The point that I will cover again is the conversation around whether this regulation put forward by Dr Reti is the best way to progress things—whether we should codify that in law. I would characterise Dr Reti's work as—I'll say Dr Reti has approached this task with enthusiasm. He has consulted some experts himself and industry and I congratulate him on that work. But I would also say that the advice that I've had is that there are flaws in Dr Reti's work and that wider consultation is incredibly important in order to have the best possible regulations that we could have. The time frame that Dr Reti has put forward for having this in practice is too short to even consult on the Supplementary Order Paper that he is putting forward and I think it would be the height of arrogance to think that the politicians in this Parliament are better across the issues around medicinal cannabis than the whole of industry and the whole of those who have a stake in this the health professionals and so on who would contribute to a full regulatory process. That is the substance of this debate and I accept that.I do note also that the Hon Michael Woodhouse raised the issue of whether a factory would be near a school. He was concerned that there wasn't detail about this—around advertising and so on. These are precisely the things that should be consulted on widely and thoroughly with those who are experts—not politicians in this House laying it down putting it in law and having to come and revisit it six months later when it's shown to be inadequate. So I don't accept the argument that it's better to have the stamp of politicians on a regime that is about a range of products that are moving and changing. The safety issues around them are developing over time. New expertise and studies are coming out on a weekly basis. I think this needs to be a regime that is fit for purpose and that is designed by and consulted on with experts and the industry. So I reject their idea that we should codify it in terms of a bill prepared by a happy enthusiastic but amateur person in this space.I don't mean to demean Dr Reti because I think he has absolutely genuinely approached this task but I think it is wise for us as politicians to consult with the whole industry with all of those experts in this field with the various professions engaged. I think we should have nurse practitioners involved. I have a range of views that will be a little different to Dr Reti's and I think we are wise to consult with experts rather than have politicians making this case.