Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you Madam Chair. To speak to the commencement clause is to speak to the timing of the bill—clearly the start of when the bill comes into effect—and you've heard from my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse the concerns we have about the transitions at the boundary of that but the commencement clause is that sort of start to the timings of the bill.As has already been alluded to in other clauses while we're talking about the start of the bill we also want to talk about some of the parts of the bill that we want to conclude through Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 179 the sunset clause. The reason we'd want to do that while we're discussing timings under this clause is because the terminal exception and statutory defence were always viewed as temporary. The Minister said it was temporary. We all get that. Even here today it's a temporary scheme. Well if it's temporary it should have an endpoint. That should be part of the timings that come into this clause.Furthermore the Health Committee did do a lot of good work in this area and yes we reached a hurdle and we all then went our separate ways at the end but I defy any members of the select committee who are here today who do not agree that the select committee got to a point where we all agreed on a sunset clause. We all agreed. We got to that point just before we decided that no we couldn't get over the ending where we all said You know a sunset clause makes sense." I'm sure the chair of the select committee will be able to reaffirm that we were all in agreement—everyone unanimously across the select committee—for a sunset clause.So while we're in the timings part of the bill in clause 2 I want to throw some light on our SOP 179 and how we come to execute this sunset clause which repeals the statutory defence and terminal exception. Simply it's like this: the bill has 12 months to be enabled—that's 12. In the detailed discussions we've had with all of the major industry players they tell us they can be from seed to sale in another 12 months—that's 24 months. Then there's always some delay when you're implementing something like this and we thought maybe about six months. We know that other jurisdictions can do it a lot quicker but we thought 30 months would sort of encapsulate everyone and would be a reasonable time frame for a sunset clause for what everyone agrees is a temporary scheme. I'm not hearing anyone—unless there's something different that the Minister wants to tell us about it and we'd seek his affirmation of this: that he envisages it's a temporary scheme as well. If it's temporary how temporary? While we're in the timings part of the bill how temporary is the scheme? Put a number on it so that everyone can see and understand because we need to understand that we're dealing with significant liberties here and a significant start to cannabis reform with this terminal exception. So it's totally reasonable for a temporary scheme that everyone agrees to be temporary—"How temporary?" is the question.We've defined that. That's the logic of how we get to this temporariness if you like and why it's 30 months and we've put it up as SOP 179. So we'd like some clarity from the Minister. Does he have an understanding? Does he have an agreement? The whole select committee got to an agreement on a sunset clause. Does he also agree that the terminal exception and statutory defence are temporary? And thirdly if it is temporary how temporary? Is our 30 months a good starting place in the logic we've given for it? If not can he come up with another answer and another solution?"