Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to thank also the Minister David Clark for his explanation of my question to the change in clause 5 and the difference between does not commit offence" to "has a defence". In fact his answer was that it's being brought into section 8 and indeed that's occurring in clause 5A which is the new exemption from section 6 and 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act where a person has a certificate already but actually that's not what the base clause 5 was doing. It was providing for some kind of defence against prosecution in an ex post facto situation.I'm not going to ask the Minister to re-explain that the difference—which is still in section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. It's still a change—"does not commit an offence" to "has a defence"—because in subclause (3) it's still an amendment to section 7(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act not section 8. However the point I'm making is that that actually underscores the confusion of all of this which is that we have very clear reasons for prosecution that this bill is going to cut right across. When I talked about it I think in clause 1 I described it as an island of immunity in an archipelago of offending where the growing the selling the distribution and the transportation of these illegal substances is still unlawful under the Misuse of Drugs Act but the person who gets that when they're terminally ill won't be prosecuted or will have a defence.Now that is about as untidy as it gets. It is a completely nonsensical provision particularly one which is unnecessary because police told us that they're not out there rounding up arresting and jailing terminally ill people who are smoking a joint. It just isn't happening. But what they did say in answer to my question in the Health Committee—which was that OK so the poor person with stage four cancer who is dying with less than 12 months to live isn't going to be prosecuted but might the police be interested in finding out where they got the substance from that it might be part of a supply chain that is part of a much more sinister offence against the public? The answer that Mr Chambers gave us was that well yeah he couldn't rule that out the possibility that indeed the police would be interested and would nevertheless question the person who has been caught with these substances. So rather than being less pursued by police once this provision is changed the terminally ill person could be more pursued by police which underscores what a nonsense this terminal exemption is.Despite all of that we had our caucus in a position where it would be prepared to swallow not a big rat—a relatively small mouse—if the greater good could be served and that was a better framework for the licensing of medicinal cannabis but we didn't get it. Now we're going to talk about that in perhaps the clause after next clause 7—the famous 59 words which apparently is all that's needed to tell the health authorities and Medsafe how to go out and set up a groundbreaking new regime.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well could we debate that when we get to it?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yeah—well it's a condition of agreement with this clause the terminal exemption clause that we actually had a bill that was going to do what it intended to do which was to create a safe regime. We could've lived with this provision but it needed to do what the preamble to the bill and the general policy statement said which was that it's intended as a compassionate measure until affordable quality products are available.Now the corollary to that is that when affordable quality products are available the terminal exemption would be redundant but as Dr Craig points out and makes the point that I've been making all along the bill doesn't do that. The bill provides for a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act in two years in respect of this provision which means what? It means we have to come back when we're in Government in two years' time despite Dr Clark's—Madam Chair? Well I'll seek the call Madam Chair even if the bell doesn't go. Madam Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Oh I beg your pardon—I beg your pardon.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Thank you. Even if—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No I haven't called. I do have to allow the Minister to take a call."