Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I just want to reiterate first the position that the National Party is taking with regards to this bill and that is that we will support the second reading as we supported the first reading because it is our policy that people who can benefit from the medical application of the marijuana product should be able to do so with the minimum amount of fuss. But what I want to acknowledge is that while I did not sit on the Health Committee and didn't hear the cases that Angie Warren-Clark has just informed the House about I have over a number of years had people come to my electorate office with similar situations and I have had a strong degree of sympathy—a strong degree of sympathy—for their plight for quite some time. But I would point out that in the cases that the member recited to the House and in the many cases that I've seen in my office over the years the qualifications for access to or for the defence for accessing marijuana that's provided in this bill would not qualify because a medical practitioner may well be treating someone for a debilitative illness but not necessarily be prepared to describe that person as being in a terminal situation. I think the other point that I'd make is that we have a bill here that essentially says that you cannot be prosecuted for possession and use of marijuana if you have got the medical practitioner's certification that you are in a terminal state and it's useful in preventing some of the pain that you might otherwise experience. It still leaves the product as illegal and it also makes it illegal—it remains illegal—for someone to supply it. Now what we've heard is that the police have said Well we're unlikely to prosecute anybody." The reality is that they're unlikely to prosecute anyone in possession of marijuana once this bill passes because the back steps will be relatively straightforward and it will be easy to have that statutory defence. So I think for the integrity of the bill we need to turn to the part that talks under the new section 14(1A) of the Misuse of Drugs Act and consider exactly how that licensing regime might be put in place. Now while there are members on the other side of the House saying that "It's all fine. Just leave it to the bureaucrats to come up with a licensing regime for the Minister to take that regime through Cabinet and for Cabinet to tick it off so the Governor-General can give it assent." that is a slow and cumbersome process and it would seem also that if we are to go down a track that is liberalising something that has been considered a menace in society for such a long period of time it might be appropriate for Parliament itself to express its views on a licensing regime. That's been our position for quite some time and I want to commend the work of Dr Shane Reti who has put together some Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that would allow the Parliament itself to at least discuss what a licensing regime might look like. I think it was pleasing to hear so many of the previous speakers saying that they want this to become part of the tool kit if you like or the array of medicines that are available to practitioners to prescribe in various circumstances. While we're now sort of dancing on a pin about the idea of taking a palliative approach to things and with the new term "palliation"—which is new to me I must say—being somewhat undescribed at the present time I think what it's really saying is that there are a range of conditions beyond terminal illness where people may benefit from the use of medical marijuana. In that sense we are looking to pass a bill here that is far more liberal than that intent and I think that while Chlöe Swarbrick has said she looks forward to collaboration I'd have to say that collaboration doesn't mean that we just do whatever the other party says we have to. We're in a very unique position here where the whole Parliament every party in Parliament has a policy that is broadly the same so Parliament itself having a say about the regime that is going to be put in place to put some sort of a definition around this so it's not a wild west out there—so that suddenly with the statutory defence out there the availability of the product is going to be more widely used and therefore you know there will be elements who want to take advantage of that situation. We're far better I think to know right from the word go how that regime is likely to be put in place. I was encouraged at the Business Committee that the Leader of the House said that he would talk to the Minister of Health to see what they had considered around the SOPs of Dr Shane Reti. The unfortunate thing is that with the way the bill is written there is some suggestion—although the Speaker has said that he would want to see those SOPs discussed in the House—that they are out of the scope. Well I would argue strongly that with a bill that actually talks about a licensing regime and an ability for people to access a product in accordance with the licence issued under this Act then discussing the licensing regime itself inside the bill as an SOP is quite in order. So I would simply want to say that we are very interested to get to the committee stage on this bill. We know that there'll be a lot of people out there who have family members people themselves who are suffering who would like to be in a better position just to try this. And I'm not going to make any comments about its efficacy or otherwise; that's for other people and most definitely it would be for the medical profession. And while the bill talks about medical professionals effectively having to give a certificate to enable people the statutory defence it's all the other bits that are missing. It's the problem that the product is still illegal. It's the problem that it's illegal to supply. It's the problem that it's illegal to grow.And so I would expect that when we get to the committee of the whole House next week the House does give fair and reasonable consideration to the SOPs that will be put on the Table by Dr Shane Reti. That way this House could go off for the Christmas break with a bill complete in every aspect enabling the use of medical marijuana and protecting the use of medical marijuana and the quality of the product through the licensing regime that could be placed inside the bill. So on that basis the National Party is supporting the bill today to go through that further stage. We then will make decisions as the committee of the whole House progresses toward a third reading."