Woodhouse MichaelNew clause 8A New section 37A inserted (Regulations setting minimum quality standards)Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. There is a supreme irony in this new clause in respect of the licensing regime. The famous 59 words—at least in the bill as it was introduced and considered by the Health Committee—used the term licensing". We have debated and removed what was their clause 7 and our new clause 8A doesn't—as far as I can tell—even make reference to licensing. What this is now called is "Regulations setting minimum quality standards". The description of which regulations should be put in place refers only and solely to the product. There's a little more detail there which kind of makes a bit of a mockery of the Minister of Health's comments about adherence to regulatory rigidity which he accused our Supplementary Order Paper of having. Indeed he himself is now doing what I think should be done which is guide officials at least in getting from the start line to a regime but that's not a comprehensive guidance. It talks about the ability to make a regulation. They may prescribe quality standards; the process by which the product is cultivated manufactured produced supported or supplied; it may be made generally to something which is an imported product or class of products; and so on.Here's what it doesn't do and here's what the whole framework no longer does even in an oblique way: it doesn't refer to any sort of standard for the people and the place and the restrictions that could go not on the product but on the whole process. So in my ignorance of the Medicines Act or any other prevailing legislation that may have that in it and therefore cover those things as standard practice for the development of a medicine—because I can't think there would be much to be gained by a fit and proper person test for the manufacture of aspirin—I don't imagine the manufacture of aspirin within a kilometre of a school is of particular note and therefore I doubt whether the Medicines Act actually speaks to that.So where the Minister has been so insistent that we free the officials up and not rigidly constrain them in their practice of developing the regime we have taken away any sort of fetters except on the quality of the product. But the product itself is cannabis and it appropriately should have some expectations placed on it for the people and the place and the co-location with other things that I now am a bit lost about because the Minister and the Government are not prepared to take Dr Reti's good advice on this and have those things included. That's fine that's their prerogative but they do need to explain to the public of New Zealand and to this House why it's not important to them whether or not a cannabis factory can be beside the local school. I can be pretty sure that if we do pass a piece of legislation that has those conditions placed on it then it's almost certain that the public is going to be concerned about that.What about planning rules? Is it going to be necessary for local council planning rules to introduce a new set of criteria for for example resource consenting manufacturing of this type? Does this constitute a farming activity? Who knows? I don't and I won't after this bill is passed and neither will the officials because they're focused only on the quality of the product. It seems entirely incongruous that we do that to the extent of things like traffic laws Resource Management Act laws Medicines Act laws and fit and proper person guidelines. I'm even more confused than ever."