Woodhouse Michael; Tolley AnneClause 5 Section 7 amended (Possession and use of controlled drugs)Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. Clause 5 is now quite different in the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that the Minister has introduced from that which was introduced and which the select committee dealt with. Now this is what we've now euphemistically called the terminal exemption" and it's this that—despite the fact that the purpose of the bill is actually to create a framework for the production and supply of legitimate medicinal cannabis products we seem to have been dominated by the question of whether or not there should be an exemption from prosecution for those who use illicit substances. Indeed it is an amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act and so this is quite significant. We have debated already in the committee of the whole House the change from the definition of "terminal illness" to that of "palliation" in clause—I think—4 so I'm not going to relitigate that. But what the amendment that the Minister has introduced does is quite a significant change in terms of the judicial process and I would I think benefit and the committee would benefit from the Minister explaining what is a semantic but potentially quite significant change. When the bill was introduced and considered by the select committee clause 5 at (2A) states that a person who contravenes the Misuse of Drugs Act "does not commit an offence" if they have a terminal illness. Now not only have we changed the definition of "terminal illness" to "palliation" as described in the previous clause we've now actually deleted by the SOP subclauses (1) (2) and (2A) from the bill and what we are left with is an amended subclause (3). Rather than use the terms "does not commit an offence" subclause (3A) now says that the defendant has a defence if at the time of the possession or use the defendant has been diagnosed with a condition that requires palliation. Now it may seem a little bit pedantic but actually—and I'm no lawyer; I'm not good enough to be a lawyer. I'm a humble chartered accountant—just a lawmaker now. But it seems to me that there is a quite significant difference between "does not commit an offence" and "has a defence". So I would be grateful for an understanding and I think the committee would benefit from an understanding of why this change was made because it appears on the face of it to be quite a significant change. I'm sure there's a reason for it—to take out subclauses (1) (2) and (2A) and simply amend (3A). "No offence" has been changed to "has a defence". So what that suggests to me is there seems to be a tightening not a softening of the provision that makes it clear that even if the person is terminally ill they are still committing an offence but they have a defence. Now I might be barking up a tree but I think this is quite significant and in order to inform the future debate on this clause I'd be grateful if the Minister could explain the nature of that change.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call the Hon David Clark. Just as I do I just remind the Government whip—I can't find anything in Standing Orders about whistling but I do think it is an interjection and he was actually walking around making that interjection and I'd ask him to cease."