Craig Liz; Dean JacquiDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'd just like to start by acknowledging Dr Shane Reti and the work he's put into developing this comprehensive bill. I think access to medicinal cannabis was an incredibly important debate that dominated my first year in Parliament as well as many of us here in this House. Unfortunately I can't support this bill and I'd like to spend a little bit of time explaining why. As I've said it is a comprehensive bill. There is a lot of work that has gone into it. It runs for 29 pages with a lot of description around how the scheme should be set out.But there are two parts in the first couple of pages which I think for me highlight why I can't support the bill. The first I guess is the title; not so much the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill but the (No 2) bit that follows on because I think that (No 2) bit—I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is it is because you've had a bill with exactly the same name occurring before you've had this bill. I think the issue that we've got is that this same bill was introduced back in 2017 and there was a big focus back then on access to medicinal cannabis.We had a huge number of submitters come and speak to us as the Health Committee. I think looking at it we had 1786 written submissions on this bill and we heard 158 oral submissions. For me the thing I remember the most was some of the submitters that came and talked to us about their wanting to access medicinal cannabis—particularly older people some who had really really severe arthritis and they were in pain day to day and they wanted to be able to access something that would potentially transform their lives. I remember parents coming and talking to us they had children who had intractable seizures and access to medicinal cannabis products had the potential to actually transform their child's life and their life. The message they gave us is: you need to go faster; don't dilly-dally around—you need to get on with the job. That's one of the messages that remains with me and I think it is one of the reasons why I would have significant concerns on starting again from scratch.So just a brief recap about where we got to. Just to start with as I said the bill was introduced in December 2017. As the select committee we received it after its first reading in January 2018. We considered this bill for quite some time reporting it back in July 2018 and then debated in the House and then the bill was passed in December of that year. One of the main modifications there was in recognition of the fact that it would be a little while while we developed up these regulations and so there was a defence included in there. Part of that debate was: rather than having somebody with a terminal illness changing that to people eligible to receive palliative care would then have a defence if they were using cannabis that wasn't approved under the scheme because the scheme wasn't yet in place. So then once the bill was passed the ministry started to develop up those regulations and put that time into that. So then in July 2019 there were four weeks' public consultation around the regulations and also the standards so that the public got to have a say and then that was considered and the final regulations were released in December 2019 and then due to take effect on 1 April last year—which they did. We've now had the medicinal cannabis scheme in place and in that time we've also established the Medicinal Cannabis Agency so that they are the ones administering this scheme. So there is a lot of work that has already gone into where we are today.So basically under the scheme you can only get medicinal cannabis products on prescription from a medical practitioner. If you are a manufacturer or an importer you have to provide evidence to the Medicinal Cannabis Agency that you meet those minimum standards which is incredibly important. And people who work in the industry have to hold a licence or they have to work for somebody who has a licence and that licence is quite particular about the things you can do—whether you are commercially cultivating cannabis manufacturing or supplying the products.I think this is where one of my concerns about the current bill is. A lot of people would have made significant investment in what they're thinking about: setting up a business. They'll be looking at what the current regulations are. They'll be buying their land. They'll be investing in R & D. They'll be working towards manufacture of a product.The problem we've got is the regulations of medicinal cannabis are very very comprehensive but so is Dr Shane Reti's bill. So the question is: what happens if there are differences between the two and does that introduce uncertainty for people who have probably invested significant amounts of money in developing something out to match the current regulations?So just some of the examples just looking at who can hold a licence under the current regulations. There is a range of things: you've got to be under 18 you can't have had any prior offences under the Act and you can't have had a licence revoked for various reasons. So basically there is a range of things that prescribe who can hold a licence. When we come across to Dr Reti's bill there is quite a significant overlap between some of those criteria but there are some other criteria. So in determining whether a person is suitable to hold a licence the director-general may consider the connections and associations that person has with other persons who may have the ability to influence the conduct of the person. Now if I was the Director-General of Health I'd be struggling a bit with quite how to enact that. Some of the other criteria: it can take into account a person's previous business experience or any other matters that the director-general considers relevant. Now if I were a manufacturer who was investing a lot of money in working out how I can develop up my products in line with the regulations if it came down to any other matters that the director-general considers relevant that would introduce quite a significant amount of uncertainty into my application and my business planning. So I think the issue we've got is that if we're going to have a comprehensive new bill coming in and trying to weave one part in with the other we're going to end up with uncertainty in the sector which will be a considerable issue for people that are quite far down the pathway already.I think the other issue around the bill is just looking at the enactment. This is where I got a little bit confused because in the explanatory note clause 2 the commencement clause provides that the Bill comes into force 12 months after the Bill receives the Royal assent." But then if you go across in the bill to the commencement it says the Act comes into force six months after the date in which it receives Royal assent. I'm not quite sure again what one does if you've got different dates. But for me the issue is thinking back to those submitters who were saying to us "Look we've just to get on with this. We need some products that we can use that are safe and that are effective. Please get on and hurry up because you know we're in need of a product that can relieve our pain and our children's distress. We want to get on with it." I think the problem is that if we've now got this bill coming through the House and on average it probably will take six to nine up to 12 months before it gets passed and then we've got a further period where the bill may come into effect 12 months after the date—or six I'm not quite sure which. That just adds again further delay and it pushes things further and further out in terms of when people may get products.So I think that the argument has been made here: could we not weave the best parts of one bill in with the regulations from the other and see where we get to? But I just think that that process—I'm not even sure how one could quite do that. It would be quite a complex thing to try and work out at the select committee process which parts you would include and which parts you wouldn't but then how would you actually then amend what was already in place? So I think the issue we've got is that we need to consider one scheme or the other. Part of the reason why I went through the time frame and gave you a bit of a history of the previous journey we've been on is just to reflect that to do it properly it does take time. We needed to have that time for the select committee to hear all of those submitters to listen to what they had to say but we needed then for the ministry to go away and develop up those regulations then we needed that time to consult we needed that time for them to be refined and then for the regulations to be put in place. We then needed that time for the scheme to be put in place and we needed that time for manufacturers to look at what was in front of them and then basically make their business cases accordingly. So I think where we've got to now after all of that time is we've got a comprehensive framework as laid out in the regulations and I look forward to seeing some of those new products coming across the line. So unfortunately I can't support this bill. Thank you Madam Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to."