Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to clause 8. It's really interesting the focus on a sunset clause by the last contributor Simeon Brown because in fact this was the alternative to the committee's deliberation on a sunset clause. I'd like to acknowledge the Hon Michael Woodhouse a member of our committee who particularly pushed for that. If anyone read our Health Committee report we did actually contemplate a five-year sunset clause to reflect the provisions that under this particular clause the Minister will review in acknowledgment that the exemption for those who require palliation was in fact an interim measure and it was a compassionate measure.The committee obviously discussed the issue but what the Minister and the officials have decided is that a better way to assess whether or not the particular clauses around exemption for those who have palliation are necessary should be via the mechanism that is before us. Hopefully the Minister will be able to articulate why it was better for this process to be conducted as opposed to the bill having a sunset clause in it.I personally think that an assessment and analysis of those who actually have benefited from the exemption would be incredibly valuable. It would be valuable to know whether or not the police did engage with people receiving palliation and whether or not those individuals had certificates from their doctors before it was required or whether or not in fact as part of the process—and this was another debatable point within the select committee: should people who require access to medicinal cannabis and the exemption because of their terminally ill status and because they are receiving palliative care have to get that certificate in anticipation that the police may engage with them and charge them or actually should it be a response to the police actually finding that they were using cannabis for medicinal purposes and therefore asking their clinician to verify essentially that they have a terminal illness and qualify under this particular section in the Act for the exemption?There may be debates about whether or not the sunset clause was the better option—we certainly debated it in the select committee—but it's pretty obvious from my perspective that the Minister and the ministry decided that it was an important part of the process for the Minister to not more than two years after the commencement of this piece of legislation undertake a review and then within 12 months of that review report in to the House. I actually think that some of the transparency that the Opposition has been calling for in terms of this piece of legislation—once it is enacted it should give them reassurance hopefully about why the exemption was needed in the first place.As I said before hopefully the Minister may be able to add a bit more in terms of whether or not reports such as these are standard because I don't know how often they have been used in the past. Are they for transparency reasons? What is the benefit of the Minister in a situation like this going through a process and then actually reporting it back given that this whole bill has been from my perspective about creating a regime that does to a degree enable a sector of society to contravene laws that other members of society can't because they are facing a situation where they have a terminal illness. We know medicinal cannabis is of benefit to them so we want to be able to see how robust this process has been including that particular clause.