Dalziel Lianne: Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4855] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I too rise to speak on the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am sorry. I meant to inform members that we are now on to 5-minute calls with a 1-minute bell. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am very keen to explain why I intend not to support this bill and in doing so I want to congratulate the member Metiria Turei whose name the bill is in on bringing the matter before the House and to say that I totally support the underlying intention of the bill. If the bill had done all that the member said in her address it would do I would support it 100 percent. 
The reason I do not want the bill to go to a select committee is that the Law Commission is holding a review on the Misuse of Drugs Act at the moment. That is not a reason in itself for legislation not to proceed. If the bill was in a different form I would support it. The bill will require people who agree with the underlying principle as I do to make extensive submissions on a bill that needs to be entirely rewritten for a number of reasons that the Minister of Immigration spelt out. It is simply not fair on those who are represented on both sides of the wider drug debate that that occur. There will be people putting their effort into the Law Commission review and that is certainly where I think the effort should occur although I would be very happy to assist and to work with other members in the House including the member who has proposed the bill to come up with a form of bill—if this bill does not make it to the select committee this time—that addresses the issue that has been raised. 
The reason I do not agree with this particular bill is that it introduces a complex regulatory framework with a Medicinal Cannabis Registration Board being established to issue the Medicinal Cannabis Identification Card and the Designated Agent Identification Card. I have printed a copy of the Sativex document “Requirements for Physician Application-Approval”. Doctors have to apply for it. It has to be signed off by the Minister of Health. As I understand it five people only have had applications approved under this particular method. I think we can improve upon this and I personally think that on a general practitioner’s prescription we should be able to have access to this kind of medication which does as others have already commented. 
In this bill the designated agent is required to prove himself or herself to be of good moral character. I totally object to that phrase being included in any law let alone this law. We have taken the phrase “good moral character” out of a lot of laws over time and I do not agree with it being inserted in this one. The requirement on the police as the Minister of Immigration has said to supply cannabis seeds to cardholders or their designated agents—seeds that they can supply only from stock seized during law enforcement activities—creates issues of concern. 
Finally the inclusion in new schedule 4 inserted into the Act by clause 13 in the schedule of conditions that are specifically contraindicated for cannabis use and of course mental illness is a potential exclusion criterion for the use of cannabis medicine in table II of the form that I have referred to. It states: “increasing evidence suggests that excessive or chronic use of cannabis is linked to psychosis and that it may exacerbate the symptoms of schizophrenia or precipitate this condition.” I personally think that if we looked at table I of this form which details inclusion criteria we would find the sorts of conditions that ought to be covered. To be honest in the nearly 19 years that I have been in Parliament I have never received a single letter from a constituent asking that cannabis not be made available to a constituent suffering from a chronic or terminal illness. The specific chronic disease states or terminal illnesses spelt out in the inclusion criteria include nausea anorexia and wasting associated with cancer and AIDS; chronic pain for which other pain relief is ineffective; neuropathic pain associated with a variety of conditions; and muscle spasms etc. associated with MS or spinal cord injury. Those are the sorts of changes that I would like to see brought before this House. If that were to occur I would support the bill.