Woodhouse MichaelClause 8 New section 35E inserted (Review and report on operation of section 7(2A) and (3A))Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. This clause is about a review and as we heard from Dr Craig in an earlier contribution this provision in the bill makes the National Party's call for a time limit on an exemption from prosecution somewhat redundant. Only it doesn't really. In fact it's a completely different thing. In the amendment to this clause on Supplementary Order Paper 177 new section 35E(1)(a) talks about The Minister must not later than 2 years after the commencement of this section require the Ministry of Health—(a) to commence a review of the operation of sections 7(3A) 8(6A) and 13(1A)".Now those sections are the exemptions from prosecution that have already gone through this committee stage and those exemptions are for the possession or ingestion of substances or the possession of tools that could be used in the ingestion of illicit substances. So the purpose of this terminal exemption according to the bill as it was introduced was simply to provide a framework so that terminally ill people wouldn't be prosecuted between when the bill passes and the introduction of a medicinal cannabis licensing regime. It's very clear in the general policy statement: it's "intended as a compassionate measure until affordable quality products are available"—until affordable quality products are available—"under a proposed medicinal cannabis scheme." Now the Minister—and I'm not sure if it's gone through yet—in his amendment is also making sure that that licensing regime is in place within 12 months. That's a heroic effort I have to say particularly if they don't use the very good amendments that Dr Shane Reti has produced although I have no doubt that ministry officials will be scrambling away squirrelling away a few ideas so that they can meet that 12-month deadline.Now after that the licensing regime then has effect given to it. So while those medicinal cannabis manufacturers will probably be doing whatever preparatory work they think is necessary to get to the start line it is by their advice necessary to probably take at least another 12 months to get manufacturing processes up and running depending on the licensing of the product itself—not just the manufacturer but the authorisation of this as a medicine which goes through another process all together. It could take the three years that the review comprises.But then what happens? The Minister is only bound to report back to the House and he's not even asked by this clause to report back to the House on what happens next in respect of that exemption from prosecution. At section 35E(4)(b) it says the review must include recommendations to the Minister on "whether any amendments to those provisions are necessary or desirable." He doesn't even have to inform the House—although I hope he will—about whether in his view the terminal exemption is still necessary.It sends a very clear signal to me that there is no intention to repeal this exemption. So what that will do is completely undermine the licensing regime. We will have people who are terminally exempt who are getting it from their—what are they called?—green fairies up the road.Chlöe Swarbrick: Yep.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well Ms Swarbrick says "Yep that's right. That's what's going to happen." We accept that. We would have even supported it had it had a time frame put on it but now we know that the licensing regime will be up and running the manufacturing process will be concluded and the approval process for the legitimate medicines will be in place but it's not the Government's intention to get rid of what they call a temporary exemption.My question to the Minister is simply this: why—why on earth? What possible conditions would need to be in place in order for the Government to consider that that temporary exemption after legitimate products have been manufactured and approved for prescription and sale—why would we still need this? What possible scenario could exist at that time—in three years' time—that would warrant the continuation of the terminal exemption? I'd be very very interested in the answer to that question."