edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
8. Question No. 8—HealthANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 8—Health8. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Is the Government making primary healthcare more affordable for families; if so how?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): On 1 December 56000 13-year-olds became eligible for free primary care. That means that all children aged under 14 are now entitled to free doctors visits. This delivers on the coalition agreement between Labour and New Zealand First. I want to thank New Zealand First for their advocacy and acknowledge their proud record on this issue going back to the 1990s and the initial introduction of free visits for children. This coalition Government is committed to making our country the best place in the world to be a child. Extending free primary care to every child under 14 is a big step towards that goal.Jenny Marcroft: What are the benefits of extending free doctors visits to 13-year-olds?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: By extending the eligibility for free primary care to a further 56000 13-year-olds we're making quality healthcare more accessible for children in New Zealand. This will ensure that all children under 14 regardless of living situation will be able to live healthier lives throughout critical years of their development. I'm confident that we will see the long-term benefits from making sure children have access to a doctor whenever they need it and the flow-on effects of this early intervention will go on for years to come.Angie Warren-Clark: What other recent changes have been made to make primary healthcare more affordable?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: More good news. As of 1 December hundreds of thousands of community service card holders saw the cost of visiting the doctor fall by an average of $20 to $30. That includes about 80000 people who are newly eligible for a community services card because they received an accommodation supplement or an income-related rent subsidy.Angie Warren-Clark: Why is improving access to primary healthcare important? Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We know that last year nearly 600000 people didn't go to a GP for reasons of cost. In a country like New Zealand costs should not put people off going to see the doctor when they're sick. Not only will cheaper doctors visits mean more people will be able to afford to get the care they need that will mean many health issues can be identified and treated early before they become major problems requiring hospital treatment.
7. Question No. 7—Foreign AffairsHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Foreign AffairsQuestion No. 7—Foreign Affairs7. Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does the Government remain committed to an independent foreign policy?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Yes most certainly. When compared to the last Government we intend to restore the word in" to an independent foreign policy.Hon Todd McClay: Will New Zealand sign the United Nations Global Compact for Migration in Morocco next week?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Despite the leader of the party member over there saying that the Government had already done that in the first paragraph of his press statement that is not the case. He is mistaken and the Government is still working on it.Hon Todd McClay: Why given the Government was being briefed on the UN negotiations as far back as March has it not reached a decision just five days before the agreement is to be signed?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because the briefing in March was to the officials who were going to be part of the negotiations in the months thereafter. That briefing was not for the Government; it was for the officials.Hon Todd McClay: Is he aware that this UN agreement will affect New Zealand's sovereignty and limit the independent nature of our migration and foreign policies and for this reason the Government should not be signing us up to it next week in Morocco?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The member would be wise to actually read the compact.Hon Todd McClay: I've read it.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well it says clearly that the compact explicitly reaffirms national sovereignty and recognises the ability for Governments to set their own migration policies. Then it goes on to say that it's not legally binding. So that member would be wise to get a lawyer to interpret it for him because it's clear as daylight in the document."
6. Question No. 6—Housing and Urban DevelopmentHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentQuestion No. 6—Housing and Urban Development6. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: How many of the 10 KiwiBuild houses in Wānaka and the 10 KiwiBuild houses in Te Kauwhata have had an agreement for sale and purchase become unconditional?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Te Kauwhata and Wānaka homes are not built yet. The Wānaka homes will be completed between Christmas and March 2019. Te Kauwhata homes are expected to be completed in 2020. I'm advised that four sale and purchase agreements so far have become unconditional but settlement is still conditional on the homes being completed and receiving code of compliance.Hon Judith Collins: Is there any doubt that the homes will then be completed and receive a code of compliance certificate?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No.Hon Judith Collins: What is the total value of the KiwiBuild underwrite across both the Wānaka and Te Kauwhata KiwiBuild developments?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I don't have that number to hand but I'm happy to get it for the member.
5. Question No. 5—EducationMARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 5—Education5. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What recent reports has he seen on the financial sustainability of institutes of technology and polytechnics?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I have recently seen a report by the Auditor-General who said that financial sustainability is the most significant challenge facing many of our tertiary education institutions but particularly the institutes of technology and polytechnics. The Auditor-General found that ITPs—institutes of technology and polytechs—have been relying on increases in revenue from international students to offset their operating costs and to fund new facilities and that that has made them overly dependent on international education and as domestic enrolments have fallen it's meant that their financial model is no longer sustainable and they have no longer been able to cover their expenses.Marja Lubeck: What other issues did the Auditor-General identify amongst the institutes of technology and polytechnics?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Auditor-General also identified a lack of coordinated thinking behind polytechnics' investment decisions with many developing their own course content despite similar courses already being on offer elsewhere. The Auditor-General found that polytechs had been over-optimistic in their roll projections—that they'd failed to reduce costs to match falling revenues. The Tertiary Education Commission forecasts that most institutes of technology and polytechs will be in deficit by 2020.Marja Lubeck: What action has the Government already taken to secure the viability of our institutes of technology and polytechnics?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: After a year in Government we have already had to intervene to prop up four of our existing polytechs. There are only 16 of them. We have announced an across-the-board funding rate increase for all tertiary education providers and we've also scrapped the previous Government's ideologically driven competitive funding model which even the private providers hated.SPEAKER: Question No. 6—the Hon Judith Collins.Marja Lubeck: Supplementary?SPEAKER: Oh sorry. I've called it. The member didn't stand up quickly enough.
3. Question No. 3—Regional Economic DevelopmentMARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic DevelopmentQuestion No. 3—Regional Economic DevelopmentMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Regional Economic Development. How many jobs have been created by the Provincial Growth Fund so far?Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): Both directly and indirectly we have had as a consequence of the Provincial Growth Fund 4000 jobs created—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Order! Order! [Interruption] Order! Right we'll start again. I will ask Government members to watch what is happening and not comment on it. Thank you.3. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: How many jobs have been created by the Provincial Growth Fund so far?Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): As a consequence of the Provincial Growth Fund both directly and indirectly about 4000 jobs have been created. With the acquiescence of the South 690 associated with investment in rail; over 1200 jobs over the next five-year construction pipeline phase as a consequence of roading investments; the Ruapehu gondola—150 jobs directly. I could go on but it's on the website.Mark Patterson: What recent announcements have been made regarding the Provincial Growth Fund?Hon SHANE JONES: On the question of connectivity a sum of over $30 million to improve ultra-fast broadband and mobile networks. In terms of tourism the Punakaiki redevelopment—incredibly important for areas around the Dolomite Point visitor experience—dolomite; not very far from the word dynamite—and a host of others all up on the website.Mark Patterson: What economic benefits will be realised from these investments?Hon SHANE JONES: The Government has a very strong focus on identifying within the regions opportunity to endow the regions with greater infrastructure thus improving productivity and attracting secondary and tertiary investment. It is actually focusing on those areas where pockets of our population have been intransigent in the sense of either gearing themselves up to come into the world of work or finding the right opportunity. All of these are contributing at long last to practical positive developments within provincial New Zealand.
1. Question No. 1—FinanceWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of FinanceORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance1. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the Treasury's Living Standards Framework?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Treasury has this week released the first version of its Living Standards Framework Dashboard. The Dashboard is a tool created by Treasury within its broader Living Standards Framework to help shape policy and policy advice. The data in it shows the current and future well-being of New Zealanders broken down by ethnicity age gender region family type and area deprivation over time. It also shows the distribution of New Zealanders having high medium or low well-being for each domain. Current well-being is reflected via indicators across 12 areas such as health housing safety and social connection while information on future well-being is shown through data on the Living Standards Framework's four capitals or focus areas: natural human social and financial and physical capital.Willow-Jean Prime: What reports has he seen about how the Living Standards Framework and Dashboard will evolve?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As Treasury itself says the Living Standards Framework and Dashboard are a positive early milestone amid a long-term work in progress. There are issues and information gaps that need to be addressed including how to better embed Māori and Pacific people's perspectives child well-being indicators and cultural well-being. In the case of the well-being of children and young people we do need to improve data collection to ensure that the Dashboard can properly reflect the well-being of our young people. Treasury has said it will keep developing and updating the Dashboard and it's important they do this so that the Living Standards Framework and Dashboard truly represent New Zealand.Willow-Jean Prime: How is the Living Standards Framework contributing to the Government's 2019 well-being Budget?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Living Standards Framework and Dashboard are an important input into the 2019 well-being Budget. This advice along with that from other sources including sector experts is helping inform Government decisions on Budget choices and the way we measure the outcomes of our policies. It's important to note that we are using this information not just to track and measure our success but also to inform our priorities for the well-being Budget. These priorities will be announced as part of the Budget Policy Statement next week and they will focus on the long-term intergenerational outcomes that will improve all New Zealanders' well-being.
Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill — In Committee—New Clause 5A
Reti ShaneNew clause 5A Section 8 amended (Exemptions from sections 6 and 7)Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to recommence the discussion on certification in which if you recall I was setting the framework that the bill is absent on this and I was saying that it serves as a good example of the legislative laziness that the media have coined around the medicinal cannabis scheme that this bill authorises and that the Minister is proposing. I was making the point that already not only have medical practitioners struggled with defining and diagnosing palliation but mysteriously medical practitioners and nurse practitioners are to certify the same which is that the person who requires palliation may procure possess consume or smoke etc. It seems to me that the first thing you would do is understand the work flow for this and you would reach out to those who are actually going to do the certifying and say How would you do that?" and that's what we did. Progress to be reported presently.House resumed.The Chairperson reported progress on the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill no progress on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill no progress on the Earthquake Commission Amendment Bill and no progress on the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill. Report adopted.Sitting suspended from 9.59 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)"
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to thank the Minister of Health for that clarification. As I understood it what we heard was that yes smoked loose leaf—when you said that's agnostic to form—would be permissible or available in the full medicinal cannabis scheme and that's something that we'll all need to think about and that New Zealanders will need to think about also. Clause 5 talks about certification as well and I'm very interested in certification because I think it's a great example of the legislative laziness of this bill. So not only are doctors and nurse practitioners going to be diagnosing palliation and whether it's advanced progressive life-threatening or near the end of life but they're also going to be doing these certificates. They're going to certify. Well that's kind of interesting. What does that look like? I know why don't we ask the people who are going to certify how they would go about doing that whether that work flow is actually manageable? So I asked Minister Clark exactly that in a written question several weeks ago: What communication if any has the Minister or his Ministry had with the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners … around certification requirements for the terminal exception and statutory defence under the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill"—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Order! Dr Reti isn't that clause 5A—the certification? Dr SHANE RETI: Does clause 5 also not talk about—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I'm just looking at it and it's talking about a certificate from a medical practitioner or a nurse practitioner.Dr SHANE RETI: Correct—I'm talking about the same.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): So we are still on clause 5. Dr SHANE RETI: Oh yes indeed—I'm talking about how that certificate might eventuate and who's going to do it—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That's right. Dr SHANE RETI: —and how's the practitioner going to do it—correct. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That's right. So that would really come under clause 5A. Dr SHANE RETI: More than clause 5?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yes. Dr SHANE RETI: OK Madam Chair. Thank you."
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): There was a substantive point raised about four speeches ago in Dr Reti's last contribution which I do think is worth responding to. I've been collecting substantive points as we've gone through the debate. It was in part addressed by Dr Liz Craig's contribution and that is—Chris Bishop: No it wasn't.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The member says No it wasn't." He doesn't even know what the point is that I've raised which is a little inane but anyway—let's move on.Dr Reti did raise I think an interesting question about loose-leaf cannabis. He wondered whether the scheme would be extended—sorry. Will loose-leaf cannabis be allowed in the scheme if it is shown to be producing benefit for palliative care? I think that was a legitimate question to ask. To clarify the scheme is concerned about quality of product not the form. So loose-leaf cannabis can be taken by vaporiser as I'm sure Dr Reti knows under the scheme on script if it is considered the patient may benefit. The nuances around that could be dealt with via a review which is indeed provided for in my version of the bill as opposed to—I guess it's an argument against Dr Reti's own Supplementary Order Paper which suggests that the Parliament should do that because it would require expertise and expert opinion to feed into it. So I just wanted to cover that off because I think this is a point worth covering off."
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): To clarify and respond to the member's question the change is simply moving the exemption to section 8 of the Act. That offence was always there.
Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill — In Committee—New Clause 4A
Clark DavidNew Clause 4A New section 2A inserted (Meaning of CBD product)Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): This is a very technical clause and I fear that if I don't speak up no one will. This new provision contains the amended definition of CBD product" allowing specified substances up to 2 percent of the cannabidiol (CBD) and specified substance content where those substances have been defined as THCs and substances related to THCs that are capable of producing more than a minor psychoactive effect. It's a technical clause but an important one.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 177 in the name of the Hon Dr David Clark to insert new clause 4A be agreed to.Amendment agreed to."
Reti Shane; Tolley AnneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Would you be kind enough just to recheck how you read out that motion in case you identified my Supplementary Order Paper as No. 177; in fact it's 178.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No no—I read it out as the amendment to clause 4 in Supplementary Order Paper 177 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 178 be agreed to and I did check that because at first it didn't make sense but I did check it.
Warren-Clark Angie; Tolley AnneANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The question is—[Interruption] OK so I understand I didn't need the motion. If no one's taking the call I can move straight to the questions on clause 4. So I will do that. The question is—Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The motion was put and so it should be voted on.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You want me to put it? OK. We do have a motion on the floor. The Opposition are asking that that motion be put. So I will put the motion that the question be now put.
Marcroft JennyJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First in this committee stage. I would like to begin my contribution by just acknowledging the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr David Clark and the diligent way he has addressed all the points that've been raised—those by the good doctor Shane Reti as well as the Hon Michael Woodhouse and then more recently Mr Matt Doocey. Thank you for making those points of clarification for us. I also note that those questions have now been becoming a little repetitive.I would just like to add in my contribution palliation. It's a point that Mr Matt Doocey mentioned—about the word. Really unless you've been in the medical profession it is not really a word you come across unless of course you have had a situation with family or friends where palliation becomes a giant word for you because it's all about that person and the fact that they have a terminal illness and they will be dying at some point usually not in the very distant future at all. So palliation is a loaded word. It's an emotive word because of what is attached to it.I'm really pleased and I thank the Minister for working very collaboratively with New Zealand First in expanding from terminal illness and the 12-month period into palliation and what that means in terms of broadening out the ability for and expanding beyond just patients who are terminally ill. We expect that around 25000—that was the figure in 2016—were classified as being in palliation.Thank you to the Minister and also to the Green Party for working collaboratively. This is a coalition Government working collectively well together on this very important bill. So that's my contribution. Thank you very much Madam Chair.
Tolley AnneCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I'd just make the point for the Minister that it is the judgment of the Chair as to whether someone is speaking to the clause in the bill.
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Madam Chair thank you. I will respond to the issues that have come up in the debate albeit some of them are repeating something that we had before.The issue around cannabidiol (CBD) that Mr Doocey just raised—what is being done with CBD that wasn't already the case? That question was answered by the Hon Michael Woodhouse in his opening contribution. This codifies in law what was already the practice in terms of regulation. The Hon Michael Woodhouse was correct in putting that forward and indeed said that that was one of the reasons—one of the things that would be easy for his party to support.The other issue that the member Matt Doocey raised was around palliation. The term was discussed also by Angie Warren-Clark and whether it provided better clarity. He read out the definition an advanced … life-limiting [degenerative] condition … nearing the end of … life". Indeed as has been covered in the debate it is better for doctors to make those judgments. I think Shane Reti raised that in his contribution. I've covered Dr Reti's contributions earlier and the Hon Michael Woodhouse's but as these issues have come up again I'm just for the benefit of the committee sharing that wisdom that's already been shared by his colleagues.The member Lawrence Yule raised the issue of Dr Reti's scheme and regulation. He didn't actually speak to the clause in the bill so I'll address the issues that he raised when we get to that clause."
Warren-Clark Angie; Tolley AnneANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to rise and take a very short call with regards to this bill and clause 4 which amends section 2 of the principal Act: Interpretation" of cannabis and cannabidiol (CBD). I wanted to just very quickly go through the definitions for the benefit of listeners at home and for some of our Opposition members who haven't read the bill so that this may clarify the matter. So bear with me; I'm going to read a little bit from the bill itself.The bill amends the interpretation and adds "non-psychoactive THC analogue" as a definition and I thought to myself "What on earth does that mean?" I'm not a scientist and I certainly am not a chemist.Matt Doocey: Google it.ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: I did google it actually Mr Matt Doocey and found out that it's a compound with a molecular structure that is closely similar to that of another. So there you go.Matt Doocey: Oh you are a chemist!ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Ha ha! I am clever. So there are a lot of terms in here that make reference and scientific references: a tetrahydrocannabinol is referenced—of course we know this as THC—and it talks specifically about a structure that it is substantially similar to and it goes on and lists them from paragraphs (i) to (iv) including esters isomers salts and the THC. It is merely a clarification.The important part I believe is when we come to new section 2A in clause 4A the "Meaning of CBD product" and I acknowledge Dr Shane Reti in that there is no controversy about this. I just believe it's important to talk to it to make sure that people are clear about what it is. So a CBD product is "a product that—(a) contains cannabidiol; and (b) either—(i) does not contain a specified substance;"—which I'll come on to in a minute—"or (ii) contains specified substances … [of less] than 2% …". So it's not psychoactive in other words. It also can't have any other controlled drugs in there and it can't have any other psychoactive substance in there. That's quite clear. So this is CBD; this is medicinal cannabis; this is under 2 percent of THC which is psychoactive OK? So that's clear.And then the other part in new section 2A(2) refers to a specified substance. Now this is what we normally know as cannabis. So a specified substance very simply is what "(a) naturally occurs in cannabis; … is capable of inducing more than a minor psychoactive effect by any means in a person." And then it goes into the scientific list. So essentially it is important when we are looking through the entire bill that we actually make sure we know which of those two substances we are talking about. I thought it was important to mention that. Thank you Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): If the speaker was being absolutely clear for people listening then she was not speaking to the bill; she was speaking to Supplementary Order Paper 177."
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I'll just take the opportunity to respond to a few of the issues raised in the debate so far on this more substantive part of the bill. I note the changed references from terminal illness" to "palliation" have been the predominant topic of discussion.I want first to acknowledge New Zealand First and Jenny Marcroft for her excellent work in this area bringing forward the suggestion of "palliation" to replace "terminal illness" as you see in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 177 that is before the committee and is being discussed now. The reason for this is that it's an internationally used term describing a condition and indeed as Dr Reti hints it is much better left in the hands of the specialists and the medical practitioners who are able to decide who meets that definition of "palliation". Palliative care as he referred to briefly is of course the action. It's a treatment as opposed to "palliation" which is a condition—I'm sure Dr Reti knows that but just for the clarity of the committee.The Hon Michael Woodhouse managed to spend a good part of his contribution talking about SOP 179 and as I've said when he's raised that in other clauses in the debate I'll deal with SOP 179 when we come to it in clause 8 of the bill. But the concern that he raised was that he saw an opportunity where his party could agree if there was a sunset clause to the palliation changes. The reason—as I explained when this was raised in previous clauses—for us preferring a more flexible regime where the Minister of Health is accountable and conducts a review as to whether this need has expired because there are sufficient products on the market to supply legitimately scientifically proven cannabis products is that that gives a degree of flexibility; it allows the experts to advise on it with the review and it means that there's no sunset clause which would require the whole Parliament to gear up to address this issue. We think that actually specialists are as Dr Reti said in another part of his contribution the best people to advise on what the right choices around this are when there are sufficient products on the market.So that's our reason. We prefer the more flexible approach. We prefer to leave these decisions to specialists rather than to politicians about when we have sufficient products on the market rather than the need for illicit cannabis."
Warren-Clark Angie; Williams PotoANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I'm going to take one more call but I'm going to be really strict on this. We've strayed away from the clause 3 debate so I would ask Nicola Willis when I call you please—the clause 3 debate.
Wagner NickyHon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I'd like to speak to clause 3 and the amendment of the Misuse of Drugs Act. I find this amended bill incredibly disappointing. We had over a thousand written submissions and more than 170 oral submissions and in that exercise submitters bared their souls. They really did. I think everybody who attended hearings of the select committee were absolutely moved by the stories. I certainly was myself and I appreciate that those people came in to talk to us. But after all those submissions and all of us listening to those submissions nothing in this bill has changed. I think it's all about the fact that the bill was rushed that it was about delivering on the 100-day promise and so it didn't really matter how weak the bill was—they had to introduce it. But the promise was to introduce a medicinal cannabis regime and of course this bill doesn't. It does open the door a crack—it opens the door a crack—but that crack was resolutely slammed shut again during the select committee process. We know no more now about the shape of the promised medicinal cannabis regime than we did before we began this work. So much energy so much effort and so much input by so many but nothing new has been achieved. As I've said all this bill does is allow someone who's seriously seriously ill—in fact someone very close to dying and in fact within the 12 months for terminal illness although I know there's a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) following—not to be charged for the offence of possessing and using cannabis.That's all it does. It doesn't help any of these very ill people to source product. It doesn't help or provide for any of these very ill people safe medicinal quality drugs. It doesn't help these very ill people by protecting a carer or family member that supplies the cannabis for them. So I think many of us are hugely disappointed that there have been no changes. We believe that the New Zealand public and certainly the thousand or so submitters wanted to see the shape of the medicinal cannabis scheme proposed. After all that—all that—that's what they were looking for. That's what they felt they had been promised. But as I said we opened the door a crack and when the submitters started to talk about what the regime should look like—what sort of quality products they'd like to see the type of rules that they believe should be introduced the rules that might keep our community safe how we could ensure the quality of the cultivation of the plants how we could look at the quality of processing how we could do quality manufacturing—the discussion was shut down.National believes that the people of New Zealand the submitters and the Parliament should have some say over the shape of this proposed medicinal cannabis scheme and that's why my colleague Dr Shane Reti introduced his bill and also SOP 178 today. That would be so that when we vote for this bill if we do we're not voting blind; so we have some idea what this medicinal cannabis scheme would look like—the scheme that the door opens with this bill but we can't see through it.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): I move That the question be now put.
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I just want to reflect on the three speakers that have spoken and just address their issues. Shane Reti obviously spoke about a sunset clause; not about the commencement so I'll deal with that when we come to the appropriate clause in the bill.The Hon Nicky Wagner made the point that the statutory defence only applies to illicit cannabis by her definition and noted that the police use discretion. I think that speaks to the prior speaker's comments Mr Woodhouse who raised the issue of what would happen—and it's the only substantive issue that I've seen raised in this commencement debate so far—if somebody was arrested and then the law changed the next day. The way the law stands is that members of the public are subject to the law at the time of offence. It's a fairly straightforward matter.
Wagner NickyHon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I'd just like to speak to clause 2 of this Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill because I'm really interested in this commencement date. What it says is that it comes into force the day after the date that it receives Royal assent but actually I think this commencement date is misleading because of the three purposes of the bill.This commencement date is only relevant to one of them. It's relevant to the statutory defence provided to those very sick people—in fact those who are terminally ill—if they possess or use cannabis. Actually just thinking about that I'm not so sure how often this exemption is going to be used because we talked to the police when they came to the Health Committee and they said they are very sensitive to this issue. They said that they understand that people who are very sick or terminally ill may want to take the relief of cannabis and that they were very unlikely to prosecute any of these people—although I do understand that it may lift the responsibility of somebody who's ill to use cannabis.But the second purpose of this bill is to amend the bill so that cannabidiol (CBD) is no longer classified as a controlled drug. The commencement date says that that will happen after Royal assent but of course the National Party has already done that. We did that in the past Government by regulation. So this is really more a belts and braces amendment. It's to do with the Act but in actual fact it will make very little difference.The last purpose—the third purpose—of the bill is to open the door to developing a medicinal cannabis scheme but it only opens the door. There's absolutely no detail about what this cannabis scheme would look like how we would manage the quality of the drugs how we would grow them properly how we would manufacture them how we would process them how they would be dispensed and how we would actually manage that scheme. So the commencement date can't possibly be relevant to a scheme that's not even described. As we know as the Minister has said it will be at least another 12 months to develop that sort of legislation. So again this commencement date is totally irrelevant.So when we look at the commencement date I'd just like to make it very clear that there's only a third of the bill only the exemption for people to use it who are terminally ill—the fact that they have got that statutory defence—that this commencement date will affect. It will not affect the definition of CBD and it will not affect the setting up of a medicinal cannabis scheme. Thank you.
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): I move That the question be now put.
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Madam Chair thank you. Just to respond to a couple of points. I suspect the Opposition members may be a little confused about how this will roll out so I'm happy to clarify for the committee.There was a suggestion that the bill should come into force a little later to allow members to get their heads around it in light of public interest—that was made by a member—and to reflect on whether drugs are a health issue or a criminal justice issue. I would reflect back to the committee firstly that there has been a thorough select committee process where members of the public have interacted and I think we underestimate members of the public at our peril in terms of their engagement with this issue and with this bill.But where I think the members may have become a little confused is that they are talking already about a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) relating to another part of the bill but saying that the regulations coming into effect six months later would be a good thing to allow further time for people to reflect and for this to occur. In fact as the bill is currently drafted with my SOP it would be one year after which would indeed allow people more time and also would allow for consultation on regulations more fully.So the members seem a little confused. They're asking for more time and then proposing a time frame which is actually likely to be less time than the regulations come into effect. Thank you Madam Chair.
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Madam Chair this will be a short call. I just however want to respond to a few of the comments made by Michael Woodhouse particularly within his own framing of them being quite trite. With regard to how he stated that this is an incorrect title for this legislation being the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill—that's exactly what this bill does: it amends the Misuse of Drugs Act because the Misuse of Drugs Act schedules cannabis within class C as a controlled substance. With regard to his point about how this will provide supposedly immunity from prosecution and it could therefore be the Immunity from Prosecution Bill" that is completely untrue and just actually factually incorrect. That's not how this law would operate. I'm not sure if Mr Woodhouse is familiar with how the prosecution process operates or works but a criminal defence does not shelter you from prosecution in any way shape or form. It is a criminal defence for when you have been prosecuted and you are defending yourself in a legal case. It is a defence. I also wanted to respond to his point about how this is supposedly decriminalising cannabis. I mean if we really wanted to go down that path I suppose to a certain extent it could be argued that we're decriminalising cannabis for those who are in palliative care—i.e. on their deathbed. Do we really want to stop those people—in the same words that were used by Michael Woodhouse—from smoking a joint? I just find that quite a sad contribution and would hope that we can end this debate on the title clause so that we can get to commencement because patients have been waiting for far too long."
Rurawhe AdrianASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call on Government orders of the day Nos 2 to 5.Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The House has made excellent progress through the course of this afternoon and it seems appropriate that as we come to the end of one bill and before we get another bill that we take the opportunity—sorry I seek leave for the House to adjourn for the dinner break.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No. And I think what we'll do is put the House into committee and then we'll finish.Members it has come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. However I declare that when the House returns at 7.30 p.m. the House will be in committee for further consideration of the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill and for the consideration of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill the Earthquake Commission Amendment Bill and the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill. Kia ora mai tātou.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Influenza Pandemic of 1918—Centenary
Hipkins Chris; Mallard TrevorSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for the committee stages of the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill and the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill; and the second readings of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill and the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill.A party vote was called for on the question that the motion be agreed to.SPEAKER: Order! We're going to start the voting again and we're going to start it without interjections from the Government benches especially if the individual concerned wants to stay for the general debate.
Hipkins Chris; Carter DavidHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker when you're doing that consideration I wonder whether you would also give consideration to the repeated reflections on the Chair that we have come to see during question time. I have been removed from the House for reflecting on the Chair on more than one occasion. This I believe is the first time you as the Speaker have asked a member to leave the House for reflecting on the Chair. The previous Speaker in fact removed someone for coughing at one point during question time.I think we do need to protect the role of the Chair and the impartiality of that role. I think that continued and repeated reflections on that are going to lead to disorder on both sides of the House. Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): If I could speak further to that point of order because I agree entirely with the comments made by the Hon Chris Hipkins it is inappropriate for any member to reflect on the acting of the Speaker. He is in a very difficult position required to make instant decisions so I am not condoning any behaviour that reflects on the partiality or impartiality on you Mr Speaker. I'm just asking you to look at the broader matter of the quality of questions and the quality of answers and your policy of deducting supplementary questions.SPEAKER: Sure and I want to say to the member I will be looking again at the question time today. I have been reflecting on the supplementary question on which I arose when the Leader of the Opposition asked it. It was out of order on at least two counts and as I rose he questioned my partiality. I have had representations from members of the National Party with regard to the deduction of questions and that was the reason that I reverted to the approach of my immediate predecessors on interventions reflecting on the Chair and reverted to the practice that the right honourable gentleman who took the point of order is very familiar with and followed himself. I'm still not convinced that on all occasions it is the right thing to do but I do want to assure members that I will attempt to keep order in the House. Part of that is making sure that questions and answers are as far as is possible within the Standing Orders and the Speakers' rulings and most importantly at the point that I am intervening that I am not chipped with accusations similar to those that were made by two senior National Party members today.
Carter DavidPoint of Order—Deduction of Supplementary QuestionsRt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise this point of order trying to be constructive. The events of question time today caused me to reflect on the frustration that is building amongst the Opposition. Can I just ask you to carefully look at the questions that are being framed and asked this week and the answers that have been given? If the answers given are used to attack the Opposition or to attack particularly the Leader of the Opposition tensions will rise to the extent that frustration will be expressed.I think your action this week has not been helpful to the order of the House. If I could further while I'm on my feet ask you to reconsider your policy of deducting questions. That is unfair on the Opposition and as has been stated in a point of order by the Hon Chris Hipkins the Opposition's job is here to hold the Government to account. Those supplementary questions are valuable to the Opposition and I ask you to reflect as I say on the questions and answers of this week and as you do that reflection would you please consider a different policy than the deducting of supplementary questions?
Hughes GarethGARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. As we look around this Chamber we can see the war memorials from the First World War which was announced when this Chamber was opened. And while there are no memorials for the victims of the Spanish flu in New Zealand which killed a half as many people in only two months as died in the entirety of the First World War—while there is no plaque—it is important that we as members of Parliament remember them and that's why the Green Party is happy and proud and privileged to support the Government motion.The Spanish flu cut a swath through New Zealand and coming on the back of World War I had a fundamental impact on our growing new society. The impacts were particularly felt on Māori who had a death rate seven times higher than Pākehā. Whina Cooper recalled in a quote Everyone was sick no one to help they were dying one after the other. My father was very very sick then. He was the first to die. I couldn't do anything for him. I remember we put him in a coffin like a box. There were many others you could see them on the roads on sledges the ones that are able to drag them away dragged them away to the cemetery. No time for tangis."As it spread around the world it had a huge impact particularly on our Pacific neighbours. In Western Samoa which wasn't quarantined like American Samoa it had a 22 percent death rate and I'm glad that this country formally acknowledged that with an apology in the early 2000s.The impacts were felt in every family in Aotearoa New Zealand but also in our laws and the response to the flu led to the modernisation of the Health Act 1920. So as we remember the victims today we must also remind ourselves to prepare for future pandemics so that every New Zealander can have the best they can.Motion agreed to."