Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. You could almost think Richard Prebble had reincarnated into the Chamber—not reincarnated but at least had reappeared into the Chamber.I have spent a lot of time with this bill and gone back and forth on whether or not I should support it. Let me make it clear that I think the status quo with medicinal cannabis is manifestly inadequate when it comes to cannabis for medicinal use. Over the last three years I have met countless sick people whose lives are improved by the use of cannabis. Some of these people have been in the media; most of them have not. Access to medicinal marijuana at the moment is difficult expensive and time-consuming. I think we can and must do better.It's also clear to me from some of the work I've done on my own accord that the direction of travel internationally is towards a legal regulated market for medicinal cannabis products. Other jurisdictions have grappled with the same problems we are and the various models overseas vary but they all have probably three key things in common. Number one there's clear authority given to doctors to prescribe medicinal cannabis alongside guidance as to how and when it can be appropriate; secondly there's a robust regime that allows domestic producers of medicinal cannabis to register and be licensed; and thirdly there are strict regulations on manufacturing and imports to control quality to make sure patients have trust in the products they use. Schemes like this exist in Canada and in Colorado and my colleague Greg O'Connor made reference to a couple in his speech—in his very excellent contribution to this debate—and ultimately I think that's where we need to head in New Zealand.So when we come to the two bills that have come to the House on successive days—we talk about David Clark's bill. That does one very worthy thing and one thing the previous Government had already done and is utterly silent on the very worthy thing it purports to do. Let me explain. The worthy thing is it provides people with a terminal illness a statutory defence to the charge of possessing and using cannabis. It could go further but it does one thing that's a step forward I think. It also changes the classification of cannabidiol. It would be fair to say the previous Government's already done this and we've heard from my colleagues tonight about how that is essentially a tidying-up exercise and puts into legislation what's already been done through regulation. If you were being uncharitable—and I'm not an uncharitable person but if you were—you could say it's an attempt to fill out a bill that lacks a bit of substance. What the bill doesn't do is establish a regulatory scheme to actually establish medicinal cannabis in New Zealand. It says it does but it doesn't. We have to wait at least two years for that to happen.So then we come to this bill. Now it too is inadequate. Members have canvassed—on this side and the other side as well—a lot of deficiencies. It does not set up any sort of regulated market for medicinal marijuana. There are no controls on production and supply. It will not give doctors any confidence—and this is a very important point—about prescribing medicinal marijuana. The qualifying criteria as my colleague Shane Reti pointed out are too broad. So it was a difficult decision but I have decided to vote against the bill.Ultimately I want a conversation about wider access to medicinal marijuana and how we can design a world's best-practice regulatory regime for New Zealand. The appropriate place for that is at the select committee—the Health Committee—that considers the Government bill that purports to establish that scheme. I also—and this is very important—want the voices of those with chronic pain to be heard and listened to. Again the right place for this is at select committee and as part of designing a good regulatory regime we must listen to the thousands of New Zealanders out there who get therapeutic value from medicinal cannabis. I thought Greg O'Connor made a very important point in his contribution to the debate. Let's get this right through the Government bill that sets up at least the starting point over the next couple of years and I suspect beyond as well through Government consultation and through engagement with this side of the House—because I think there is good-hearted support as you've heard from members on the National side tonight for a robust regulatory regime that allows people who gain therapeutic value from medicinal marijuana products to use them. But let's get this right.Because this bill is so flawed and so deficient and because we already have a vehicle in the Parliament as it exists right now I cannot bring myself to support this bill worthy as it is. Thank you.