Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai tēnā koe tēnā koutou e te Whare. In starting this contribution tonight I need to address the fact that with some of the points made by previous speakers most notably perhaps the Hon Simon Bridges my blood is boiling particularly because of the way that there has been a complete asphalting over the history that has got us to this point.First and foremost the Hon Simon Bridges alleged that the National Party put this on the agenda last term completely neglecting the reality that in the term prior the Hon Julie Anne Genter had a bill pulled out that I then inherited in the subsequent term which I was having conversations at the time with Dr Shane Reti about in rooms which then led to this place. And he is aware of that he knows that and so too does Chris Bishop.The other thing that I would say is that to try and—and that also neglects the reality that Metiria Turei had a bill that came before this House in 2009; 10 years ago. It also neglects—and I'm gutted to hear Dr Shane Reti talk about how there was somehow this competition of ideas between National and Labour neglecting the fact that his bill has the literal title of No 2 because my bill came first. On top of that there is the point that was made by Simon Bridges about how I am boring on this subject. And I'm not sure if that's because I'd really like to engage in the nuance and the complexity and the evidence but I'm happy to have that dialogue with the National Party any time.So it will come as no surprise to Dr Shane Reti that the Greens are not supporting this bill tonight and he knows that because he didn't approach us to talk to us about it which means that he'd probably done the numbers and realised the way that the chips were going to fall. But just for anybody who is listening tonight to the debate that's occurring in the Chamber: that's not what the process looks like in this place when bills are known to be going through the process to be passed and the numbers are being done to accumulate their passage through the Chamber.But on top of that the major reasons that the Greens are not supporting this is because in substance it represents a highly pharmaceuticalised commercial model which will not increase access nor improve affordability for patients. But also actually perhaps worse than that is perhaps a point of difference for the Greens in this debate tonight and is actually something that I want to acknowledge the Hon Dr David Clark for really listening to me on and engaging with me on when he was the Minister of Health in the development of what is now the medicinal cannabis regulations which was to explicitly focus on the injustices caused by cannabis prohibition particularly noting that a majority of New Zealanders will have used cannabis—80 percent of New Zealanders by the time they're 21 will have used cannabis but there's only a small proportion of New Zealanders who carry a criminal liability for having done so.So what we want to do in creating a legal framework is not set up a system that perpetuates those injustices particularly when marginalised demographics are those that are targeted under prohibition. So we explicitly made it so that those who had former convictions would be able to work inside of the industry not necessarily hold the licences but to work inside of that industry. And here I can't give a better example of the slow progress when you wait for expungement of criminal convictions than the 1986 homosexual law reform which finally decriminalised homosexual acts between men in consensual relationships but it took more than 30 years for us to expunge those convictions by which point many of those who held those convictions had passed on. Waiting to do the justice bit until after you've dealt with the politics of today simply isn't good enough.The other thing that I think needs to be noted and that I will applaud Dr Shane Reti on is the fact that there is in here a really good thing in greater education for prescribers and for GPs. That is something that absolutely needs to be picked up. But fundamentally and this was exposed in a parliamentary written question that I put to the Minister of Health Andrew Little under section 35E of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 which was put in place by virtue of the medicinal cannabis laws that we passed in the last term of Parliament there is a requirement to review the efficacy of medicinal cannabis regulations within two years of their passage. I have it on record that that is to be reviewed and completed by 18 December at the end of this year.Obviously there seems to be by virtue of the comments that some parliamentarians have made in the media appetite to continue discussing this issue and I hope collaborative effort can continue.