Yule LawrenceLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It's a pleasure to take a brief call on this bill. I think having observed the debate in the previous parts and the last particularly three contributions it highlights to me why we've got in such a mess with this piece of legislation. On one hand in the bill it tries to define terminal illness" which means "an illness from which a person can reasonably be expected to die within 12 months". Then we have what's called the palliation clause that's been introduced as a way of narrowing this focus—sorry broadening the focus I suppose in one sense and narrowing it in another.The reason this side of the House has difficulty is because this side of the House had proposed a regime under Dr Shane Reti that was a properly organised managed and regulated medicinal cannabis regime for pain relief seizure control and other such benefits largely at the discretion of the health professionals and some regulations. So we had set up a scheme that would benefit anybody that the medical profession thought would benefit from it. Now we're getting caught up in whether it's terminal or palliative only because of this first part of the provision which seeks to give an exemption from prosecution for existing cannabis products. And I think it's a real shame that this House where we have almost complete unanimity that the New Zealand public should have access to a medicinal cannabis scheme is ending up debating whether it's a terminal illness provision—what does terminal illness mean?—whether it's a palliative-type provision and what does that mean? There are people all over New Zealand waiting for this legislation to pass who aren't in a palliative state who aren't actually even in a terminal state but who have a belief or an understanding or even documentation and guidance that medicinal cannabis will make a difference to their life and their condition. So under clause 4 which is really where terminal illness is defined and then the subsequent Supplementary Order Paper 177 from the Minister of Health this House is getting all hung up on things that in my view to the New Zealand public don't really matter. We are defining things down to a level which I don't think is in agreement with what the New Zealand public expect. And if you look at the last contributions for the last half an hour all we're doing is trying to find a way of satisfying the Government which wants to bring in a piece of legislation and some genuine concern expressed by this side of the House around the definition of terminal illness. I go back to the Hon Michael Woodhouse and what he said previously: on one hand we're trying to develop a set of regulations; we're trying to develop a regime. And I'm glad the Minister has said that he supports expert independent advice on what would work. But on the other hand we are hell-bent on racing through a series of legislative changes that allow people to be exempt from prosecution for the use of existing cannabis-based products. In the meantime this House in my view is getting caught up on definitions which it shouldn't be. To the Minister: from where I sit I ask you whether in fact before the passing and at the end of the committee stage of this bill you could reconsider the fact that you are determined to focus on the definitions of terminal illness palliative care and the palliative state and simply find a way with this side of the House that could make this work because the Hon Michael Woodhouse and Mr Shane Reti have talked about a sunset clause which is specifically in there to allow a regulated and proper regime to be developed so all we're dealing with is what happens in the meantime until that can occur.And I think for the people listening at home—a lady I spoke to this week who has got great expectations about this bill will be disappointed as it's currently written that she may not have access to medicinal cannabis. I think this House needs to do better than it is and I ask the Minister to reconsider his position. Thank you."