Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I want to carry on from where my learned colleague from the Health Committee Angie Warren-Clark left off because I think interpretations and definitions are in fact very important. When we introduce a bill and debate it in its first reading we debate a lot about the intent but in fact the real grunt of the bill is understanding whether the words in the draft bill will actually deliver the intent. That's why I think at this committee stage we do need to explore the words we have. Chlöe Swarbrick mentioned she did a quick google search for something she was researching: palliation. I wasn't at the second reading. Palliation is something I'm new to so I did google it myself. I was surprised actually. When you look at definitions in the UK with palliation you don't have to be terminally ill to receive palliative care. Now that's on the NHS website. In fact if we're using the word palliation" because we think it gives better clarity—and I'd like the Minister David Clark to respond to this—maybe it doesn't. Maybe in fact 12 months was actually a more definitive amount because when you look at the definition in new section 2(1B) inserted by clause 4(3) which says "an advanced progressive life-limiting condition"—well you can think of degenerative diseases for that and conditions."Nearing the end of life"—what is the definition of "nearing the end of your life"? Well I could be flippant and say that every day I'm alive I'm nearing the end of my life. With respect I know where we're heading about someone who is terminally ill but I do think we need to be very clear here because people will act on this bill such as the New Zealand Police force. So we're introducing a defence under clause 4 with interpretation around the use of "palliation". I think we just need to be very clear that we haven't succumbed to jumping into a buzz word. If you don't really know what "palliation" means you keep quiet because you think people are smarter and they have heard it first but is it actually more definitive than using the 12 months? I think we need to be very careful about that definition as well to understand in fact whether that will be able to be used by people who would need to enact this piece of legislation. We've heard many a time this bill has been called legislative laziness.I've got a question for the Minister: why do we need cannabidiol (CBD) in this bill? What difference is it from what the last Government did about improving access to CBD? I mean where I want to start that with—I must say I was quite touched by the submissions. Going into it I was a bit cynical. I thought it was going to be a lot of fringe sort of people really with wacky ideas and I was genuinely moved by very normal hard-working Kiwi families who were put in a very difficult position because they were finding it very hard to access products like medicinal cannabis that could make a real difference.We heard stories of one family with a young kid and the cost and the money they were paying for Sativex through the pharmacy. So I want to give this due justice. I don't want to spook some of my own colleagues but it even seems with CBD that maybe it should just be down at the pharmacy—you get your creams and your oils and you rub it on. You're always going to have that difference between the perceived benefit and the evidence of it but in my understanding a lot of work around CBD has already been done on this. So I'd just be very curious what this bill does that wasn't already in law and regulation as well.So just the two questions there to the Minister around the difference of this bill versus CBD availability existing and is "palliation" a clearer definition than just saying "within 12 months" for someone who's terminally ill?"