Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to touch on this point on utensils which clearly brings into question the smoking of loose-leaf cannabis. I want to touch on a point that the Minister used in justifying why the smoking of loose-leaf cannabis should be OK as one approaches near the end of life. But before I touch on that in substance I just want to respond to a point that Chlöe Swarbrick the member who's just resumed her seat made. This claim that an offering of a defence means that a criminal trial process still continues is complete hogwash. It's a claim that was made yesterday as well. Here's the reality of the situation and the criminal process: if the police believe that the person in front of them has and meets the test for a legal defence to the crime they simply won't press the charges. To stand in this House and say This doesn't make any great change. It's still going to go through the courts but when they are on trial then they'll be OK—they'll get off." is a nonsense and we shouldn't have the public going to sleep at night—or indeed during the day as they listen to this—thinking that that might possibly be the case. The real substance I wanted to talk about was a contribution the Minister made when we were talking about this permitting the smoking of loose-leaf cannabis and clause 6 certainly does that through the use of utensils. The Minister made a comment—and he may wish to stand and say that he thinks differently under this clause but I suspect it would be the same—that "It should be OK because it is nearing the end of life and what's the harm if people are going to smoke a joint? They are terminal."—so the harm that it would cause is not going to have a material effect on their life at that point. Well my issue with that—and I feel that the Minister didn't accurately respond to the question that was raised under that clause—is it doesn't explain why we are permitting in this bill to introduce a gross inconsistency in the area of how people are able to take otherwise illegal substances. He didn't explain why either this bill or particularly this substance is somehow so greater better or otherwise that it should be—in the end of your life it's OK to have a law that says you can smoke loose-leaf cannabis because we have other otherwise illegal substances that are used routinely to ease pain or suffering in end-of-life conditions. The most obvious ones are opiate-based products which are very regularly used in our health profession—very regularly used for people in great pain and particularly people who are perhaps nearing the end of life as well. To my knowledge and certainly in recent times there has been no question that we would pass a law that would say "Well you're nearing the end of your life and you're in a terminal condition so you can smoke opiate." Certainly you can be prescribed opiate-based products—absolutely. It's a fundamentally—well maybe "common" might not be quite the right word but it is definitely a part of medical treatment in New Zealand including for people suffering great pain and nearing the end of their lives. But we've never entertained the idea that we would suddenly say "Well because you're almost near the end of your life you can smoke opium." so why would we have a law that says you can smoke marijuana? In fact our contention is that the use of medicinal marijuana or medicinal cannabis products should be regulated should be a medical grade of product and should be properly treated and certainly not a loose-leaf product. If the governing parties would just pause and actually consider they still have time to support elements at least of the Supplementary Order Papers that Dr Shane Reti has put forward that would put in place the very regime they want to create and which wouldn't require even a transition period to permit the smoking of loose-leaf cannabis. That would be good for New Zealand and it would certainly make this bill a better bill. Minister Clark how about you stand and tell us why—what is so different about marijuana or cannabis that nearing the end of the life it's OK to smoke that and yet we wouldn't entertain an idea that says in the same situation "We'll just allow you to smoke some opiate."? In the context of what the Government is saying this bill is about it's the same thing. Palliation—it's about easing suffering or easing pain and helping people to get through those final parts or times of their life. So arguably—and I think in a very logical sense—in that sense one could argue they are the same. But we wouldn't entertain saying let's have the smoking of opium so why on earth should we entertain this idea of permitting the smoking of loose-leaf cannabis?"