Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It truly is a pleasure to be speaking to this bill today the second reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill also known as the medicinal cannabis bill. The second reading is an important opportunity to review the select committee process and to weave together the advice of petitioners the experience we bring to the table as MPs and the mandate of the people we represent and to take a position. Today our position is this: the National Party will be supporting the medicinal cannabis bill through the second reading today and into the next stage at which point we will require the smoking of loose-leaf cannabis to be replaced and the incorporation of some of the legislation that we have crafted to be included as part of a framework. This will allow all parties and New Zealanders to see debate and agree on the main features of a medicinal cannabis scheme. On these terms then we commit our collaboration and timeliness and I would like to thank my colleagues Chris Bishop Mike Woodhouse the National Party caucus and the whole Health Committee for their work to this point. As many have pointed out support for the first reading was a big step for the National Party and be in no doubt this is another big step. But we have been moved by petitioners. We have been moved by the New Zealand public and we now seek to work with others to add another tool to the tool box so that clinicians can ease the suffering of vulnerable New Zealanders. I want to deeply thank the 1786 written submitters and the 158 oral submitters. Every submission was heard with respect and consideration. Thank you for making yourself vulnerable to the select committee process so that we could better understand your need. On many submissions we were moved as I was moved. It is the unexplainable lottery in life that people of all ages can be afflicted with conditions that we seek to aid here today. It is for you that we lend our support to this bill. The committee returned this bill back to the House unamended. I need to address this and put to sleep the myth that we did not collaborate in committee. On this matter the chair of the select committee Louisa Wall as chair and I as deputy chair are in complete agreement. The main issue that caused the committee to stumble was this: we believe on an issue as sensitive and important as medicinal cannabis that at least a basic framework needs to be visible to all parties across the House so that we can all debate and agree on the key points to a scheme that will then stand the test of time and political cycles. This would not seem unreasonable. On child poverty we have collaborated and have a framework that we can all see and debate. On climate change we are collaborating and working on a framework that we will all see and debate. On medicinal cannabis the canvas was bare. We were told to leave it to unnamed officials who over the following years would figure it out. No. The National Party will not leave the details of a medicinal cannabis scheme to unnamed officials with no further parliamentary oversight. We raised this with our Labour Party colleagues on the select committee as a very important point for us. They said no. We sent officials away to find out how we could develop a medicinal cannabis scheme and then bring it back to the House for parliamentary oversight. We were told that the committee could collaborate and then add a parliamentary tool called an affirmative instrument. This would ensure that all parties could then debate and agree on the nature of the medicinal cannabis scheme. We were excited and ready to roll up our sleeves and add the work that we had been doing. Labour said no. There is no question and no debate about this issue. We wanted parliamentary oversight and Labour did not—a not unreasonable request. There was some foreshadowing of this outcome. We sensed the reply would be no and so still believing in the need for medicinal cannabis we had been doing background work on the sort of detail we think Parliament and New Zealanders want to see. As history will show we then announced a comprehensive medicinal cannabis scheme that we put out for public scrutiny. We developed the scheme in consultation with overseas best practice and informed by the submissions that we had heard we were prepared to put our work out for comment. In our hands medicinal cannabis is just another medicine that requires much the same safety and testing that other medicines require. In our hands we address safety and quality by requiring pharmaceutical-standard cultivation processing and manufacture. We require licence holders and employees to be fit and proper persons. We address access and affordability by utilising Medsafe's existing section 23 provisional registration mechanisms so that medicinal cannabis products can be fast tracked through the Medsafe system without compromising safety and quality. We require GPs and nurse practitioners to certify a 12-month medicinal cannabis card so that dispensers police and other services are reassured. A carer card is also described for those who are too frail to travel. We legislate pharmacists to dispense medicinal cannabis as a pharmacy-only medicine—again improving access and affordability.A very important issue then is the matter of eligibility. We don't think politicians should make this decision. In our hands an advisory board of specialists will weigh up the scientific evidence and therapeutic benefit across a range of conditions. The Health Committee heard from a number of petitioners submitting around chronic pain. I would note that officials advised against chronic pain in the terminal exception for four reasons—and this is all available in the departmental report. Point (1) the ministry considers that any other groups of patients such as those with chronic pain should continue to be able to access quality medicinal cannabis products on prescription; (2) it is appropriate that people with other conditions including chronic pain receive medical advice about the use of medicinal cannabis products including potential interactions with other medications and medical conditions; (3) extending the provision to other conditions may also risk undermining the intent of the scheme which is to improve access to quality medicinal cannabis products on prescription; and (4) the ministry does not recommend extending the exception and statutory defence provision to include people who are diagnosed with other conditions. We're hearing today some of the changes to the original bill to be enacted through Supplementary Order Papers: the replacement of the definition of terminality" with "palliation" which one presumes is a derivation of "palliative care". In the context of my previous discussion on chronic pain I would like to come back to what I've stated previously: that whether chronic pain is in or out should not be a decision for politicians to make. This should be a decision for specialists to make and we will stand behind that position. We are also hearing today support for domestic strains. We are likely to support that once we have seen the detail supporting a local industry. We believe that there may be four to five strains of domestic cannabis that may be suitable for commercial production. What is missing in this discussion today is the amnesty period that every other jurisdiction that has introduced local domestic strains has required. Any strain of cannabis in New Zealand is currently here under illegal means therefore an amnesty period is usually required and it's a short period: a couple of weeks so that people can't in that time frame bring across the border illegal strains. The cork's out of that bottle today. We urgently need to know what the Minister's intentions are. The National Party remains ready and willing to collaborate on a medicinal cannabis scheme that will ease the suffering of New Zealanders. Our support today at this second reading is a clear signal of that support. However further support is contingent on two things: the replacement of smoked loose-leaf cannabis and parliamentary oversight of a medicinal cannabis scheme framework that includes the well-researched work that we wish to share. We are ready. We want to collaborate and I believe that together across this House we can develop a high-fidelity medicinal cannabis scheme. Thank you."