edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Walker HamishCROWN MINERALS AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 27 November.HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): The purpose of this bill is to amend the Crown Minerals Act 1991 to [basically] maintain the effectiveness and efficiency of the permitting regime established by that Act. This bill aims to address [a few] gaps [and] errors and inconsistencies within the Act and to clarify and update statutory provisions." It's a bit like a spring-clean. Every now and again you need to have a good spring-clean at home just to polish up a few bits and pieces. The National Party—we support this bill which amends the Crown Minerals Act 1991. Most of these changes are reasonably small but they do add some financial beef to prosecute those who fail to notify the Minister of the change of control of a permit participation company. Failure to notify the Minister could result in a fine or a penalty of up to $800000 which hopefully will act as a reasonably strong deterrent for people to not do so.I just want to acknowledge the select committee who oversaw this and made in my view some reasonably good changes—the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee who have done a good job—and in particular one of those members who's here today: Andrew Falloon. It's good common-sense stuff. They received 11 submissions hearing oral evidence from five submitters at hearings here in Wellington. The committee recommended that the bill be passed with the following amendments and I just want to talk about a couple of those amendments one being around the change of control. Clause 8 which would insert new section 41AB into the Crown Minerals Act sets out how consent should be obtained for the change of control of a permit operator holding a tier one permit. And as introduced the new section 41AB(3) states that if a person knows or should know that they have obtained the power to exercise or control the exercise of 50 percent or more of the voting rights of a permit operator without the prior consent of the Minister they can be convicted of an offence under section 100(2A).The third change I'd like to briefly discuss is the committee heard from various submitters and they have decided that they're going to recommend amending new section 41AB along with clause 14. This basically makes it very clear that "a person can only be convicted of an offence if they knew or should have reasonably known prior to the change in control that they will obtain the power." Regarding the late applications for consent—so basically if someone forgets to lodge a change of control—the committee recommended amending clause 8 and inserting new section 41AC(2) "to confirm that a late application for a change of control must be made before the change of control is complete."That's probably a good place to end it. In the National Party we support the bill. Once again we'd just like to congratulate both sides of the House and the select committee for making I believe some reasonably good common-sense decisions."
Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill (No 2) — Second Reading
Hipkins ChrisTHURSDAY 6 DECEMBER 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Next week legislation to be considered in the House will include the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill the Conservation (Infringement System) Bill and the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2). The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2019-20 GST Offshore Supplier Registration and Remedial Matters) Bill will receive its first reading. On Thursday 13 December the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill will complete its remaining stages. As previously notified to the Business Committee there will be an extended sitting on Wednesday morning. Wednesday afternoon and evening will be a member's day.
Wednesday 5 December 2018 (continued on Thursday 6 December 2018) - Volume 735
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Motion agreed to.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 8A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Amendment agreed to.
Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill — In Committee—New Clause 8A
VoteThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 179 in the name of Dr Shane Reti to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 177 in the name of the Hon Dr David Clark to clause 8 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 177 in the name of the Hon Dr David Clark to clause 8 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 8 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 64New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Clause 8 as amended agreed to.New clause 8AA Section 37 amended (Regulations)
Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 8
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 178 in the name of Dr Shane Reti to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 177 in the name of the Hon Dr David Clark to clause 7 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 177 in the name of the Hon Dr David Clark to clause 7 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Amendment agreed to.
Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 7
Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 6
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 177 in the name of the Hon David Clark to clause 6 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 6 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Clause 6 as amended agreed to.
Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill — In Committee—New Clause 5A (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Motion agreed to.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 5A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.New clause 5A agreed to.
Bayly Andrew; Rurawhe AdrianRESERVE BANK OF NEW ZEALAND (MONETARY POLICY) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Main amendmentsANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you. I am looking forward to debating this bill in the committee of the whole House. This is a very important bill because the Reserve Bank is a fundamental tenet of the arrangements that we have in place to make sure that we've got fiscal sustainability in New Zealand. The Reserve Bank acting as an independent unit largely oversees monetary policy although it has a range of other operational requirements to fulfil. But its prime role is to oversee monetary policy and exercise that right by the setting of the official cash rate (OCR). Of course many people realise the importance of the OCR which is setting the daily cash rate that banks have to pay for their overnight deposits with the Reserve Bank. That in itself is the underpinning for interest rates for all of New Zealand and that in turn makes a significant contribution to the foreign exchange rate of New Zealand and how it's valued overseas.So this bill is interesting in that for some reason—one of the questions I'll be looking forward to asking Minister Clark is to tell us why this change is required and there are a number of changes. The first is around the issue of giving the Reserve Bank a dual mandate. Most people will be aware that—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I apologise to the member for interrupting him but it has come time for me to report progress.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill with amendment progress on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill and no progress on the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 12.56 p.m. (Thursday)
Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 9 and 10
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I want to continue the conversation about section 37 because the Minister has—and rightly so—put the replies to my initial questions about why this bill doesn't contain much more detail about this licensing regime. It's all going to be down to two things—it's all going to be down to the officials and there's already sufficient guidance in section 37 of the Misuse of Drugs Act—and yet there are no provisions on the things that Mr Brown has raised. But if there are what he is suggesting—because effectively the officials came and told us that the reason we need to add to the Misuse of Drugs Act for the provision of cannabis-based medicines is that there isn't a minimum quality standard for such a product to be manufactured. I don't actually agree with that. I think the Misuse of Drugs Act is clear that the regulations can be made to do a number of things and in section 37(1)(a) or (b)—I can't remember now; I've just lost it—there is an ability albeit a slightly vague one for quality standards to be established.Indeed one would like to think that that was the case for any controlled drugs that were going to be turned into prescription medicines. Of course we're not breaking that new ground if you like because we already do this with opioid-based products where the opioids on the black market are illegal and they're class A drugs which raises the obvious question: what on earth are we doing here? We've got a terminal exemption that the police told us they don't need because they're not prosecuting terminally ill people and we've got now a regulation setting quality standards that we don't need because the Minister himself told us it's already in section 37 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. And even if it were needed why Minister does it in clause 8A new section 37A have the word may" littered through it? It says "Without limiting section 37 the Governor-General may by Order in Council … make regulations". It "may" contain regulations to prescribe minimum quality standards: "(3) Regulations made under this section may—(a) apply generally to a product or class of products;". There's no compulsion here at all which means we've spent months debating an unnecessary and I would suggest virtue-signalling piece of legislation. Why? Because this Government wanted to look good in its first 100 days. The officials told us and now we have it conceded to by the Minister—although I don't think he intended to—that there is no basis for changing the law. We have the Misuse of Drugs Act we have the Medicines Act we have the commensurate regulations and we have a benevolent New Zealand Police service that is not arresting and locking up terminally ill patients who have a joint. What a waste of time."
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I appreciate that the Minister has touched on this point which I raised earlier around the regulation-making powers but all he points to is section 37. Now under section 37 there is a range of subsections—his officials are there behind him—and I'd like to know under what subsection of section 37 will the Minister be able to put in place regulations which deal with locality of premises and of fit and proper persons. I hope that the Minister now has that information and will supply that to the House.
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Just let me address those points; they have been addressed before. Section 37 is where that material is as the member says. He can read the Act in detail himself if he wants to find the subsection. I can assure him it's in there because I've seen it.The Order in Council is a mechanism under regulation to ensure that we have the right people who are able to have a licence as he indicates. Again that means that there's Cabinet oversight of this decision making and answerability in this House so that's an argument in favour of the approach we've taken. I note that and thank the member.
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I will respond to the key point that Dr Reti has raised: amnesty on strains. I'll be guided by expert advice and international best practice on that or I'd expect that the oversight body would be.I do also want to acknowledge the member Chlöe Swarbrick and the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand for their push to have the inclusion of these local native strains. This is a coalition Government that's working well together and there are many great things that have come to this bill as a result of the other parties contributing. I just want to acknowledge that in this committee of the whole House.I also want to say that we will be making the regulations public and available within a year as the member Chlöe Swarbrick said and again I thank the Green Party for that contribution.
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to address a couple of points raised by Dr Reti and the Hon Michael Woodhouse. Dr Reti raised concerns about unnamed officials—he likes to repeat this phrase—consulting on this regime. These are experts. We've canvassed this in many of the clauses so far through the debate. But we would expect that the consultation with industry and with users and with wider stakeholder groups would be thorough and that is one of the big differences between what he's proposing which is a templated thing that Parliament signs off that the politicians make a call on versus actually getting this right for our exporters and those who have an interest in the regime and are consulting fully and thoroughly to make sure there are no unintended consequences. We've canvassed some of those in previous clauses—potential unintended consequences of Mr Reti's proposed regime.Both Dr Reti and the Hon Michael Woodhouse raised concerns about stuff that is not in the bill. Michael Woodhouse said that the part doesn't refer to licensing and in fact under new section 37A(1)(b) in clause 8A it does refer explicitly to a licence granted under the Act. But his general point was that a full licensing regime is not set out here. That's because it's not needed—it's under section 37 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. He asked for clarification on that. That legislation is already laid out in the existing legislation; we don't need to duplicate it here. Likewise Dr Reti raised things around labelling regimes licensing dispensing—well all of that is covered in the Medicines Act Dr Reti. So these things are already at law described for medicinal products. There is no need to duplicate that in this legislation.
Rurawhe AdrianCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Dr Shane Reti's amendment to Supplementary Order Paper 177 to insert new clause 8AA is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I'll just respond immediately to the member Simeon Brown's questions. He refers to new section 35E(4)(b) in clause 8—whether any amendments to those provisions are necessary or desirable."—and constructs the argument: why would you have those few words when you could have many more? My view is that simple clear legal drafting is preferable.To his second question about why a review should take a year if he reads closely in subsection (2) it says "within 12 months" it must be completed. I would contend that it's useful to have that flexibility to ensure that consultation during that review process is thorough that the appropriate experts are consulted and that the review is completed properly."
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): The member suggested that one of us might be confused. I am happy to say that I'm pretty clear on this. The palliation exemption—or the terminal exemption as he refers to it—is a compassionate response to a shortage of supply. We know of affordable quality products. We want to allow for the development of sufficient products of sufficient quality to address the relevant palliation circumstances and allow for the possibility that some of those palliation circumstances may not yet have sufficient quality or supply ready to address them and that exemption may indeed need to continue. I would hope that it wouldn't; it's a compassionate response in the interim until the supply scheme is fully functional.
Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Minister for his contribution but I'm not sure if I'm confused or if he is because when he talked about the review he used a scenario of the potential for products that might be harmful or some other thing. But this review process is actually on the terminal exemption from prosecution for illicit substances. It won't in my understanding have anything to do with the medicinal cannabis regime that's being put in place by this bill. So certainly it did seem a little bit odd.I want to acknowledge Louisa Wall for her chairing of not only this bill but the Health Committee generally which is a collegial place. We weren't able to agree that this bill should proceed but that doesn't mean that we didn't have a very good discussion—including the one that the chair described in her last intervention—about the sunset clause. Was it five years ago that we first started talking about this? We weren't able to get to that because there were other conditions for the progress of the bill. But she did use the words that this was to be an interim measure" and that it was to be "a compassionate measure" and I agree with that—particularly the "interim" bit. But she also referred to the response from police should somebody even after the regime has been put in place if it becomes unlawful again—whether or not it would be appropriate in the circumstances to prosecute.But that's only part of the conversation the select committee had because we actually looked at the question of whether or not this terminal exemption was even necessary in the establishment of a medicinal cannabis regime because we now know the police aren't doing that. If anybody can come up with one example of a person who meets the definition of palliation—it's not 12 months any more but it's a terminal illness with death imminent—where police have successfully prosecuted that person for the simple act of smoking a joint I will march beside them in protest at that action. But we knew it wasn't happening—Mr Chambers came and told us that it wasn't happening. So we are debating the question of whether there should be a review but there's an equal argument for whether we even need the provision.On the matter of the cut-off and the five years we would have been happy—in fact we were discussing whether or not five years was too long or too short. Dr Reti has put in an amendment—defeated I think—for 30 months and one day. We could have framed it to say let that exemption lapse on an event or on a milestone. It is possible to say "On the day after the first products become available on the market" so that people don't have to rely on illicit substances. We haven't done that either. I do accept the point the Minister made that a strict cut-off may well be problematic for that purpose but that doesn't stop us from negotiating a better description and clearer articulation of the policy intent which is that this be temporary.So I'll ask the Minister again the question that I asked at the start because he in his last intervention said there could be good reasons for continuing the terminal exemption regime. I'd just like to hear one of them."
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I'm happy to respond to the member Louisa Wall's request for further comment on the review process outlined in the bill. I note that the sunset clause debate has occurred in clauses 1 2 and 4. Certainly in my notes we've discussed this several times but not every member will have been following the debate right through and this is the substantive issue for this part of the bill so it's absolutely entirely appropriate and I'm quite happy to repeat the comments I've made before about this.The idea around having a review and making the Minister responsible is that the Minister is of course responsible to this House for his or her actions so the Minister can be held accountable through the House for that. It seems to me incredibly important that we have experts interacting with those who have been interacting with the bill who are able to assess the maturity of the supply scheme. The issues around price and availability that sparked the need for a supply scheme the exemptions around illicit cannabis and how they are happening in real life and certainly whether there's anything around cannabidiol or alternate seeds that were already in New Zealand—all of those things of course can be reviewed by the Minister and looked at by the Minister.It's true that most licensing regimes are administered by officials. They seek expert advice and report to Ministers in many different portfolios on the practical implications of current practice because if things are set up in regulation it's easier to quickly move if there's a change in circumstance such as new studies that reveal some products are dangerous or interact with others and that changes need to be made. Those can then be made promptly in a process that's set down in regulation or in respect of a review rather than bringing it back to the House and having to pass new legislation. So I think that point is made.In terms of the sunset clause for use of illicit cannabis by those who are in palliation in the final stages of life or in life-ending conditions I note that they will have the opportunity in the review to present their case and we will have the opportunity to review the maturity of the supply at that stage.Having a strict sunset cut-off may mean that if there are reasons for continuing with that regime we would need to bring it back to the House and have another debate about it where the matter could be much more simply and effectively dealt with straight away through a review. I think that has been canvassed but it was worth canvassing again because it is an important part of this particular clause.
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I just want to pick up on the points raised by the member Chlöe Swarbrick in her contribution about the width of the director-general's ability to have discretion and concerns about Treaty issues and natural justice.It is true that there are a number of restrictions put forward in Dr Reti's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 178 around who might be involved in the cultivation of medicinal cannabis. I just want to put on record that concerns have been raised by the industry including those who are already producing for research purposes products who employ those who previously have minor criminal convictions and see it as a legitimate way to get them back into work and into meaningful paid proper employment.I think this highlights for me the very point that I've made earlier in the same debate around the clause that we think that regulation needs to have a wider public process of scrutiny. By codifying it in the law now we risk making mistakes that could be avoided by having a wider consultation process. That's why I recognise the work that's gone into Dr Reti's SOP but also the risks that come with rigidly codifying this through the Parliament requiring additional work time and delayed effort eventually of the Parliament. If concerns arise the Parliament is less nimble and able to respond to the evidence of how a law is implemented and the effect of how a law is implemented. It's an argument for making sure things are codified in regulation and with constant access to experts and expert oversight.So I just think the member Chlöe Swarbrick has raised some really important points around the width also of the director-general's discretion about who might be fit and proper persons including judgments around reputation. This is the kind of error that could be made in codifying this in the law without a wide consultation as to the broader effects of this in New Zealand's society.
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Madam Chair a number of the arguments and issues canvassed in this clause are ones that were covered last night in the debate but I appreciate not all members may have been following that closely so with your indulgence I'll just repeat some of the material I introduced to the debate last night just to cover off those concerns. Mr Hudson just immediately before was raising the issue of why this illicit product should be legalised and not others. I think the answer was contained in the material he presented himself in terms of the lack of affordable prescribed products; whereby with opiates there are prescribed products available. There are not affordable prescribed products in the cannabis space and primarily this is a compassionate response in the interim—a stopgap as the member Chlöe Swarbrick put it. The criminal defence is there as a stopgap to stop the prosecution of those who are literally on their deathbed.The Green Party did advocate as Ms Swarbrick mentioned for a wider adoption. I appreciate it's not directly relevant to this clause but just noting that New Zealand First put forward a very sensible extension to palliation—which does feature in my Supplementary Order Paper 177—here at this point. Rather than simply the terminally ill it does extend it a little further but it's in line with the international use of products in respect of palliation. I want to thank New Zealand First for that initiative.Going back to Dr Shane Reti he raised again the issue of smoked loose-leaf being part of this scheme. He repeated his argument from last night on the earlier clause 5 so I will just repeat my answer from last night to the issue when he raised it on clause 5. The extending of the scheme—for example to those who might have a palliative benefit from smoked loose-leaf—will be dealt with in the review that comes forward eventually if that's an issue but the fundamental point is that the scheme itself is concerned about the quality of the product not the form. Loose-leaf as we know can be taken in a vaporiser under this scheme on script if it is considered to be of benefit to the patient. So that's to cover off Mr Reti's point.I will stress that this clause is about the defence provision; it's not about the types of products that may be available on the market. Though members I can see have enjoyed discussing those things this is about the defence provision.
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I just wanted to obviously respond to the debate points that have just been raised but also to refer to clause 6—which we're obviously debating—which I would note is an extension or rather a clarification of the criminal defence which is offered to those who are in palliative care or in palliation. So I just want to actually bring this back to what the crux or the purpose of this piece of legislation is which is around addressing the issues of access and affordability of medicinal cannabis and the purpose for that is to try and explain why it is important that we have this criminal defence.This criminal defence as has been elucidated by the Minister of Health a number of times is a stopgap. It exists for the purpose of compassion for those who are presently in palliative care—obviously formerly in terminal illness. I would note of course as well that the Green Party advocated for this to be extended for any who may need it for medical necessity but unfortunately we didn't manage to get that across the line.I also wanted to clarify for the sake of I believe it was Alastair Scott who raised the figures and who wasn't sure where I got my figures from with regard to the 43 percent of 40000 New Zealanders who are consuming cannabis on an annual basis using it for medical purposes. That was from a Ministry of Health cannabis use survey from 2012-13 which notably obviously was of course when the National Party were in power.So I think that that's important to note because this is already happening. We need to provide greater safeguards for New Zealanders who may be going down this track. But this is not a prescription-based scheme when you're looking at a criminal defence. That's why it's important to realise that this is simply a compassionate stopgap to ensure that those who are literally on their deathbed are not being successfully prosecuted and sent to jail.So I just wanted to clarify those points and simply state that this is not the decriminalisation that has been heralded by some. This section solely concerns those who have been given certification by a medical practitioner that they are in palliative care and that acts as a criminal defence—i.e. that they would still be put through a prosecution process—albeit notably the police in their submission to our Health Committee said that they are already using their discretion in choosing who they decide to prosecute. But I just really want to quell the moral panic here because what this clause focuses on is solely those who have been given certification from a medical practitioner that they are in palliative care and that certification acts as a criminal defence in a case where they are being prosecuted for the use or possession of cannabis or cannabis-related utensils.
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): There was one point in that contribution that related to the bill and arguably not to this clause but I will reflect for the member that regarding the issue of smoking products while I've said that that's very uncommon in the final stages of life this compassionate exemption that's in the bill to allow people to consume illicit cannabis products for a limited period of time is in there because people are dying. We are not particularly worried about the harms caused from smoking should they wish to consume the products in that manner in the final stages of life. This is a compassionate clause. It's a temporary thing until we have better supply of products. This has been well canvassed in the media and well canvassed in the House. I do urge the member to have a close look at the bill.
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Thank you Mr Chair. I will respond to several of the points noting that the clause is a very narrow one about the location of an exception to make it consistent with other similar provisions in the principal Act at section 8. But issues have been raised from the members and I wish to respond to them in good faith.The first is the notion that people in the final stages of life who are in palliation will suddenly fill our malls with smoke. The reality is of course that most people who are in the final stages of life and using medicinal cannabis products are using sprays or oils—I say that for the members' benefit—and it's unlikely of course that they will be necessarily in social settings. I say that out of compassion to those who are dying. This part of the bill is really about making sure—sorry not this part but the part that refers to palliation really is about making sure that there is a compassionate response and that people are allowed to use illicit cannabis products in the final stages of life.There was a substantive point raised—again maybe not directly related to this clause but about the review—and the Hon Michael Woodhouse was making the case that delegation to experts to make the regulations was somehow lazy law. I think that's a little bit cute but he was making an argument and I will make the opposite argument that I think that it is better law and better regulation when we have wide consultation with the public. But I do want to push back on his suggestion that somehow in the review that would happen after two years the main thrusts of the Act would be left out of scope. They won't be. Implementation of the exception and defence provisions for example will certainly be reviewed.
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you Mr Chair. There are a few questions coming from that certainly from the previous speaker Louisa Wall. Their empty medicinal cannabis scheme is not fit for purpose. To the Minister's last reply—Louisa Wall: It will be.Dr SHANE RETI: Well we don't know; we can't see it.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Members should not wander around the Chamber interjecting. Don't do it.Dr SHANE RETI: Thank you. To the Minister's last reply where he describes discussing with a few doctors I suggest he put that to the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners if their representation is just a few doctors. I don't think they'll be very happy with that.The bill talks about smoking. We're having this discussion around smoked loose-leaf. The question I want to ask the Minister and I'd like a response to is: we've already heard that smoked loose-leaf will be part of a full medicinal cannabis scheme; will smoked loose-leaf be able to be smoked in public? How does that align with the Smoke-free Environments Act? I would be very interested to hear that discussion and a response from the Minister. I'll phrase the question again: will smoked loose-leaf under a full medicinal cannabis scheme be able to be smoked in public? Thank you.
Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Firstly I'll address briefly the certifying issue and then I'll clarify for the House what this clause is about. Dr Reti has raised the issue of how the certifying process would work and has managed to speak to a number of Supplementary Order Papers that were ruled out of order in the House carefully under the guise of talking about the workflow and so on.This will be the subject of consultation as the regulations are developed. Dr Reti has obviously talked to a few clinicians as have I about how this might work and has developed a thesis. What is important in my view is that there is actually a proper consultation on the regulations that we ask the professions for their judgment the experts for their judgment about how best this should work and develop a mature view on how best to make this work. He doesn't mention nurse practitioners which are explicitly outlined in here. I don't think his proposal even considered nurse practitioners.But the underlying point is that when it comes to how the process will work there will be a full consultation process to ensure the regulations are fit for purpose and that's how good legislation and regulation is developed. It's not about parliamentarians coming forward with the thesis after having spoken to a few GPs though that would be a good starting point. Dr Reti's starting point is you know worthy of itself in that respect.What I would say about clause 5A though more generally just to clarify for the House is that the provision we are debating now is a provision that moves the exception provision for people requiring palliation to be able to possess and use cannabis to section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act which would make the location of the exception consistent with other similar provisions set out in section 8 of the principal Act. Essentially what we're doing here with this clause is making the Act easier to navigate and understand. So this clause is really about consistent drafting—that is the purpose of this clause. It's not really a great substantive debate as I see it but I did want to address the issues Dr Reti raised.
Tuesday 4 December 2018 - Volume 735
Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 to 3
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 1 agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 153 in the name of the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway to clause 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
VoteThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 144 in the name of Nicola Willis to clause 39 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Dan Bidois to clause 39A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Part 2 as amended agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the schedule be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Schedule agreed to.
Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 153 in the name of the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway to Part 2 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 115 in the name of the Hon Scott Simpson to clauses 29 and 29A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendments not agreed to.
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 147 in the name of the Hon Mark Mitchell to clause 18 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendments not agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 145 in the name of Dr Parmjeet Parmar to clauses 24 25 26 and 27 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Employment Relations Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
VoteThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 143 in the name of Simeon Brown to clause 12 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 114 in the name of Dan Bidois to clauses 13 and 14 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendments not agreed to.
VoteThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 112 in the name of the Hon Scott Simpson to clause 7 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 113 in the name of Dan Bidois to clauses 9 and 10 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendments not agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 153 in the name of the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 111 in the name of the Hon Scott Simpson to clause 4 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.
VoteThe question was put that the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Bill read a second time.
Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
12. Question No. 12—Commerce and Consumer AffairsJO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer AffairsQuestion No. 12—Commerce and Consumer Affairs12. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent announcements has he made on market studies?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources) on behalf of the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: On behalf of the Minister yesterday the Prime Minister and I were pleased to announce that we'll be asking the Commerce Commission to undertake an investigation into the retail fuel market. The Government is concerned about the high cost of fuel and the financial pressure it is putting on families and businesses. This is why we are taking action to understand the market conditions and to determine whether consumers' interests are being promoted at present and if not what actions need to be taken. Jo Luxton: Why has fuel been chosen as the first market study? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: On behalf of the Minister there are indications of competition problems in the retail fuel market such as the more than doubling of petrol and diesel importer margins over the past decade. The previous Government attempted to look at the matter but without the market studies power that this Government has given the Commerce Commission they were unable to definitively conclude whether or not there is a competition problem in the market. This Government is committed to ensuring consumers are getting a fair deal at the pump. Jo Luxton: What will the market study into fuel look like? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: On behalf of the Minister the terms of reference for the market study specify the study will be focused on factors that may affect competition for the supply of retail petrol and diesel used for land transport throughout New Zealand. These include matters such as the structure of the industry; barriers to competition; the extent of competition at the refinery wholesale and retail levels including the role of imports; and features of retail petrol and diesel markets that are no longer in the long-term interests of consumers. This is a Government that is committed to asking the hard questions about this.