Clark DavidMISUSE OF DRUGS (MEDICINAL CANNABIS) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 4 December.Clause 1 Title (continued)Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): When I was making my contribution when the bells rang last night I had introduced briefly the bill and spoken about the extension of palliation and had thanked New Zealand First for their contribution in that regard. That will be moved in my SOP when we come to that part of the bill. That extends the protection for those who use illicit cannabis who are dying to ensure that they have a compassionate consideration and that they can access cannabis without fear of prosecution until we get a regular supply of medicinal products in New Zealand.I spoke about the medicinal cannabis scheme that we'll be setting up with this bill and the way in which that will be overseen. I also spoke about the deregistering of cannabidiol and the use of seeds which the Green Party has suggested as an amendment which will be in our SOP around the use of seeds which are already existing in New Zealand because there are New Zealand specific strains which may have medicinal possibilities that exporters may wish to use and promote and also thanked the Green Party for their contribution around ensuring that regulations must be in place a year after the bill has passed in the House. I want to thank the parties of the coalition for their contributions.Now is not the time for a broad debate; we're on the title clause. I briefly did want to acknowledge though that the Opposition has brought a couple of SOPs to the committee that we'll discuss at the appropriate point. One of them looks to put a parliamentary sunset clause into the legislation. I guess I have a mixed reaction to that. We have in our bill a review that would enable the Minister of Health who's accountable to this House to end the exemption for illicit cannabis. I have some amusement I guess at the concession contained therein. Because of course if there was a National Government in place in 30 months' time they themselves could bring it to the Parliament if they wanted to. I guess effectively in this SOP the member is conceding there won't be a National Government at that time. I think I want to admire his courage for getting that through his caucus. Because I think that's quite extraordinary that he should be conceding the election at this early stage. So it's a somewhat pointless SOP because if they are in Government they could certainly bring that matter back to the House if it concerned them. I guess with that SOP they're effectively conceding they're expecting the coalition to carry on beyond the election. I suspect when he took it through his caucus he wasn't deliberately undermining his leader or anything like that. But I am amused that it has reached the committee.The other SOP puts regulation in place around the bill. The Opposition will contest that that regulation is important. I would argue that it's better for experts to design the regulation as we move in what is effectively a moving market where new safety aspects and so on will kick in. We need to have a flexible responsive regime where experts not politicians can comment on this.But as I say it's a narrow debate. The first one it's on the title so that will be the end of my contribution. I feel like I've introduced a bill and the debate that is to come. Thank you.