Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill.

The bill amends the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. This bill makes three key changes: it provides people who have a terminal illness a statutory defence to the charge of possessing and using cannabis, it will allow us to make regulations to set quality standards for medicinal cannabis products, and it removes cannabidiol from the Misuse of Drugs Act so that it is no longer a controlled drug. This bill does not make any changes to the recreational use of cannabis.

This bill will make medicinal cannabis more readily available and will help bring relief to people suffering a terminal illness or to those in chronic pain. New Zealanders are compassionate people. No one wants to see people suffering, and medicinal cannabis is an option that allows some people to find relief. The bill will give more people the choice to access medicinal cannabis should they wish to. While New Zealanders are able to access medicinal cannabis products now on prescription, there are few quality products available, and they are expensive. It can take weeks to import them, and there is a shortage of medicinal cannabis products available worldwide. New Zealand now has the opportunity to be a part of the solution.

A major part of this bill is the development of a medicinal cannabis scheme. This will include an advisory committee to review the current requirements for prescribing medicinal cannabis, setting minimum product quality standards to improve patient safety and give medical practitioners confidence, and allow for the domestic cultivation and manufacture of medicinal cannabis products. In time, this scheme will lead to a greater supply of quality medicinal cannabis products worldwide, including products made here in New Zealand. The bill will allow for quality standards to be set for all medicinal cannabis products, whether produced domestically or imported.

It is vital that quality standards are set for all products. Medicinal cannabis products that are not produced to a quality standard may be unsafe, and when we don’t know the composition of the products, they may contain potential psychoactive effects. Products may contain contaminants such as pesticides. Health practitioners are right to be cautious about prescribing these products. The medicinal cannabis scheme will assist us to alleviate these concerns by supplying products that will have a quality associated with them that is a known composition. Under the medicinal cannabis scheme, manufacturers will have to show that the composition is true to label and products are free from contaminants. As a result, there will be trustworthy quality standards.

We consider that health practitioners are best placed to decide whether a person would benefit from medicinal cannabis. This is why we will continue to require a prescription from a health practitioner to access medicinal cannabis under the scheme. We also have international obligations to meet under United Nations drug conventions. The convention requires a Government agency to oversee the cultivation and manufacture of cannabis product produced domestically. This agency will be within the Ministry of Health. We will establish a medicinal cannabis advisory committee early this year. Currently, aside from Sativex for specific cases, health practitioners must get approval from the Ministry of Health before they can prescribe cannabis. The committee will review this requirement and will look at information needs for patients and health practitioners. This advisory committee will include doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and consumer representatives. The development of the scheme and agency will be a key focus throughout 2018.

The scheme will take time to develop and implement. We know, however, that in the interim there will be people with a terminal illness using illicit cannabis. That is why this bill establishes a defence to the charge of using and possessing cannabis or a cannabis utensil for people who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness. Giving the terminally ill a statutory defence for the possession and use of illicit cannabis will mean they are not criminalised in their final days. This is the compassionate thing to do while the medicinal cannabis scheme is established. Terminally ill people are likely to rely on family, whānau, and friends to source illicit cannabis for them. We do not propose extending the statutory defence to cover the range of people who could supply cannabis to terminally ill people. This would greatly widen the scope of the defence. We want to keep the scope narrow, as it’s intended as a compassionate measure until the scheme is established. I intend to address supply through the development of the scheme, which, once established, will ensure quality products are readily available.

The bill will also remove cannabidiol from the list of controlled drugs. Cannabidiol is a substance found in cannabis that has potential therapeutic value and little or no psychoactive properties. The bill will make it a prescription medicine rather than a controlled drug. The change to the legal status of cannabidiol responds to the advice of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs, which considers drug classification issues. They found that based on the low risk of cannabidiol and its potential therapeutic value, the proposed change would be reasonable. This change will bring New Zealand into line with other countries such as Australia, who made a similar change in 2015. The World Health Organization late last year, about the time we announced our intention to legislate, noted that cannabidiol could have therapeutic value and did not carry any addiction risks.

This legislation will not please all of the campaigners for medicinal cannabis, but it goes further than any previous Parliament has gone. It represents real progress in making these products more widely available. This bill is a real step forward that all Government support parties are pleased to sign up to. If Parliament wants to go further, it has the opportunity when it considers a member’s bill in Chlöe Swarbrick’s name. The public will also have the chance to have their say when the Government bill is considered by the Health Committee.

To reiterate, the bill will develop a medicinal cannabis scheme, it will introduce a statutory defence for terminal illness so that people are not charged for possessing and using cannabis, there will be some regulations set to make sure that medicinal cannabis products in the supply scheme meet quality standards, and it will remove cannabidiol from the Misuse of Drugs Act so that it is no longer a controlled drug. I commend this bill to the House.

It’s a great pleasure to be able to take a call on what is a bill of high public interest throughout the country. I commend the Minister on bringing this bill to the House. It was rather politically driven on his part, in the sense that the Labour Party had made this commitment to introduce medicinal cannabis legislation in their first 100 days, and he’s just got it under the bar. But I was very intrigued by his speech, and I will come back to that shortly.

As an electorate MP in the Northcote electorate, I’ve had extensive contact with people from a wide range of backgrounds with a wide range of views on medicinal cannabis, but there is no doubt that this is becoming much more of a mainstream issue and that people have an interest in being able to access these products when they are experiencing, sadly, a terminal illness. There’s also, of course, people who are wanting to access it for a wider range of medical complaints, as well. It’s also been an issue that’s had a great deal of public exposure through the sad illnesses of Helen Kelly and Paul Holmes and Martin Crowe—three very public figures who all said in their latter days that they had accessed medicinal cannabis. So there’s no question that this is an issue that the Parliament has to deal with and that it’s of great import to tens of thousands of people across the country. The Minister canvassed what is in the bill, but I think it would be true to say that he added in a lot there that he claims is in the bill that there’s actually virtually no mention of.

So, just to recap, this bill is a long way from perfect. Yes, it introduces that statutory defence for someone who is in the last 12 months of life with a terminal illness, so that they have a legal defence for the possession of cannabis or any cannabis product or the utensils with which to use that product. It also puts in place a regulation-making power for a potential future scheme, but it’s absolutely silent on the scheme. And I was intrigued to hear the Minister—he didn’t take his full 10 minutes. He only managed to go for just over eight minutes, which is a bit of a surprise, considering that this is in his top two priorities in health; the only priorities in the 100-day plan, and this was one of them. But he made out that this bill talks about setting up a scheme for access to medicinal cannabis, and I’d invite people at home to go around and have a look at the bill. It’s available on the Ministry of Health website. It does not talk about the setting up of a scheme. It is completely silent on that. My concern about this is, it’s not clear whether the Minister really knows what that scheme will look like.

I can say that he must have his officials tearing their hair out, because he was out there around New Zealand, campaigning big on medicinal cannabis. He said to people that the Labour Government would increase access to medicinal marijuana for the terminally ill and those with chronic pain and chronic conditions. Of course that created a huge wave of expectation, and there will be many people who, when they read this bill, will be bitterly disappointed. As Bill English has said, this is a Government long on intentions but actually very poor in the delivery. That’s what we’re seeing in this bill. It’s a hollowed-out, weak bill that goes nowhere close to delivering on what Labour had promised.

I think, actually, to a certain extent there’s exploitation around the confusion about what medicinal marijuana actually is. If you go out and talk to someone in the street, they would naturally expect that when David Clark was going around the country saying he would deliver medicinal marijuana that that would mean that people who were terminally ill would be able to smoke loose-leaf marijuana to alleviate their pain and symptoms. Of course, that is not what this bill is doing at all.

Medical marijuana encompasses a huge range of products, right from those that have undergone clinical testing—which is how we treat any new medicine introduced into New Zealand—through to what we call non-pharmacological grade, which are medical marijuana products that haven’t met any accepted standards here or overseas. And then there’s this very confusing term cannabidiol. Marijuana has two components. There’s the THC, which is the psychoactive component, and then there’s the non-psychoactive component, which is cannabidiol. There’s a change there in this bill. Of the three changes, we’ve talked about two of them. There’s the regulation-making power. There’s the effective decriminalisation for possession of marijuana, although it’s silent on the quantity for terminal patients who are using it for their own use. But then there’s this thing that the Minister has been heralding—how they are changing the classification of cannabidiol.

It’ll be really interesting to understand how that is any different to what the last Government did under the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Regulations, passed in about June 2017, where cannabidiol was no longer a controlled drug. All this is, from what I can see in the legislation, is just a tidy-up of the legislation to reflect the regulations and existing practice. So, when you take that away, what you’re looking at is a pretty hollowed-out bill.

The last Government had already taken some action on medicinal marijuana. Peter Dunne did a very good job as the Minister then, and I want to acknowledge his contribution. In December 2016, he removed some of the bureaucratic restrictions around access to marijuana, and Sativex, one of two products available in New Zealand, no longer needed ministry approval for sign-off. He then, in February 2017, signed off non - pharmaceutical grade medical cannabis. That delegation was moved from the Minister to the Ministry of Health.

I want to acknowledge at this point the family of Alex Renton, who have campaigned over a long period for medicinal cannabis. That was a very sad case where young Alex had a condition, status epilepticus, and his mother and supporters petitioned for him to have access to Elixinol oil in the hope that that might alleviate some of his symptoms. Sadly, though, he passed away.

But David Clark has said, and this is pretty much from his press release, actually, “We wanted to make sure that medicinal cannabis is more accessible to people with terminal illness or chronic conditions and the piece of legislation [here] will make progress.” Well, I can tell you it absolutely doesn’t, because when you look at people who are using medicinal cannabis for a terminal illness, this is not going to result in one more person accessing medicinal cannabis. The other thing is, he’s got a half-baked scheme here. He’s legalising possession, but where are these people—the middle-class, elderly, terminally ill patients of Northcote—meant to get their cannabis from? So it’s a half-baked scheme, which doesn’t go far enough.

It’s very clear it’s the result of that political pressure to get this over the line within 100 days. If you don’t believe me, have a look at the regulatory impact statement (RIS), because that’s very clear about what this bill does and doesn’t do. It actually says there’s been massive time pressure here. It actually says the legislation has had to be rushed to get it under the bar for 100 days. It says there will be a paper in March 2018 that will lay out the description of this medicinal cannabis scheme, which the Minister was talking about as if it’s actually in the legislation. It’s not. The scheme has not been designed. All this gives is a regulation-making power. So you can see this is a heck of a long way from perfect, and there are some major weaknesses in the bill.

The RIS also goes on to look at it. It says that when you score this bill against its intentions in terms of increasing equity to medicinal cannabis, in terms of quality and safety, and on compassionate grounds—and this is exactly what it says in terms of impact analysis—well, this is the same as doing nothing, in terms of increasing equity to medicinal cannabis; it’s the same as doing nothing, in terms of improving quality and safety, but on compassion it is much better than nothing.

Although this is a poorly designed, politically driven bill, on balance we have to be mindful of the needs of those terminally ill people. So, in the end, compassion has to win out over a very poorly designed piece of legislation. National will be supporting this bill but we’re expecting to see some big changes, some big improvements, and we will have some very big questions when this comes to the select committee. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill. The Hon Dr Coleman spoke about how this is a bill that does not introduce anything new, that it doesn’t even introduce a scheme, and that somehow it is the same as what the previous Government had. This legislation will address what is a difficult and complex issue for individuals, as well as for families, as well as for the medical community.

The Hon Dr Coleman referred to the regulatory impact assessment, which is what I would like to refer to as well now. Under the heading “Problem Definition” it says that “Despite a legal pathway, access to affordable medicinal cannabis products remains problematic.”, in this country and that there is sometimes a reluctance by medical practitioners to prescribe medicinal cannabis. In addition to that, there is not affordable medicinal cannabis either. It is not quite that easy to access medicinal cannabis.

One of the things that other speakers have spoken about are those folks that have tried to access medicinal cannabis; Helen Kelly being one of them. For her, it was also pretty difficult. As part of our 100-day plan, this Government committed to making medicinal cannabis more available, especially to people who are suffering from terminal illness. Can I say that we are a compassionate, caring Government. While we were campaigning, all three of us—Labour, the Greens, as well as New Zealand First—we were getting a lot of feedback from people saying that this is an issue they wanted us to address. We have listened and, yes, we’re introducing a scheme.

Can I just reiterate what the honourable Minister of Health spoke about. The medicinal cannabis scheme that this bill actually introduces is a first. It’s a scheme that will have an advisory committee. It will review the current requirements for prescribing medicinal cannabis—that’s the first thing that the scheme will do. Second, it will set a minimum for product quality standards to improve and ensure patient safety—something that we currently do not have. Third, we would allow for domestic cultivation and manufacture of medicinal cannabis products. Again, this is something we need to address here in Aotearoa.

We know that none of us wants to see people suffer. None of us wants to see people in pain, especially those with terminal illness. “Terminal illness” is defined as those who are in the last 12 months of their lives. As a compassionate, caring Government, it is incumbent on us to make sure that those whom the medical profession actually says have a terminal illness—they have only up to 12 months of their lives to live—can ensure that they can access something to help them with pain. We know that they can access medicinal cannabis right now. However, we know that not all of them that can, actually do have access.

Can I also say that the framework that this bill will introduce will ensure that it will have these things. First, it will introduce an exception and a statutory defence for terminally ill people to possess and use illicit cannabis. It will also ensure that those who have cannabis utensils are also exempt. Second, it will provide regulation-making powers to set high-quality standards to ensure that the products being manufactured are safe. Third, it will ensure that schedule 2 of the principal Act has it so that cannabidiol (CBD) and CBD products are no longer classified as controlled drugs. These will become prescription-only medicines, and that would reflect the advice that we got from the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs in 2017. So it’s important to reiterate the point that this legislation does not make any changes to the legal status of recreational cannabis use.

As I said earlier on, most of us have watched loved ones have pain—those with terminal illness—and the way that people actually deal with terminal illness and pain is very different. I have relatives whom I’ve seen in pain. The way that they actually deal with terminal illness and pain is that at one extreme, they don’t even want to take medication, not even morphine. For some of my relatives, it’s like their statement that they are strong to the end. That’s at one extreme.

On the other hand, though, we do know that when people suffer from terminal illness and they have such chronic pain, many of them can’t even sleep at nights. People have told us that even though they take medicine and even though they take morphine, they still are experiencing so much pain, and that medicinal cannabis is what actually helps them to sleep. We do know that there are people that suffer from depression, and we do know that those with terminal illness towards the end of their lives actually don’t have such good quality of life. However, they tell us that using medicinal cannabis does assist them, especially towards the end of their lives. Medicinal cannabis, through this bill, will offer that option of relief. It will enable our people in Aotearoa New Zealand to have the best quality of life in the time that is left to them.

Indeed, as I alluded to before, and as other speakers have, we have examples of people who have spoken really strongly about the use of medicinal cannabis. Helen Kelly is one such example of a person who lived so bravely, so openly, with terminal illness, and she devoted the last part of her life to campaigning for her fellow New Zealanders to make their lives better. She felt for ordinary people for whom medicinal cannabis might make a real difference.

I want to just end with a quote from one of many interviews that she made, and this is something that Stuff actually covered. At that stage, she was suffering from tumours, she had a broken back, and she had only a few months to live. I quote her: “I’ve still got all the symptoms of coughing and being weak but living without pain is sensational.” She was taking 10 milligrams of slow-release morphine twice each day, but by bedtime the morphine had stopped working and she was aching. I quote her: “If I took nothing I reckon my pain would be seven or eight out of ten. If I just took the morphine my pain would be about five out of ten but if I take both, my pain is nothing. [It’s only the cannabis] that gives me relief, it lets me sleep all night.”

Introducing this bill is really relevant to a whole lot of people, and this is why it’s important for us to pass it on after first reading, so that it’s open to the public for them to come and give us their recommendations about how we move forward. This is something that is of huge importance to a whole lot of people, and it is incumbent on us to ensure in terms of the legislation we end up with, not just as Government but as an Opposition, that members of the public can come and let us know how it is that they would like us to move forward. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to speak to this bill, a bill that clearly has public interest and a bill that we will support but that we do have some issues with. Certainly, I’d like to start off by saying I do not believe this cannabis reform is the second or even the first most important issue for the New Zealand health system. I think there are much more important issues to be dealing with than cannabis reform. So I want to lead off with that.

There are three parts to this bill that I want to talk to. The first is cannabidiol—that’s what I’ll call it—which is the non-psychoactive component. It is something that probably counteracts the THC component, and it may well do. It is not readily available and has been used for addiction treatment, as an anti-inflammatory, and for some neuropathic pain resolution, as well. We agree that this should be moved to a different schedule and be more readily available. In fact, we did that in 2017. We did that so that it no longer requires Ministry of Health approval, and we had people, like the New Zealand Medical Association chair, Dr Kate Baddock, who were very supportive of that move—so no issue with the cannabidiol.

The cannabis framework—the second part to this—we do want to talk to for a moment, because we’re hearing for the first time the issue that loose-leaf cannabis may be part of this scheme. That’s probably an important thing to put in the bill, Minister, but to bring it up here for the first time is kind of a bit late. But that’s OK, we can work that through select committee, because what we’re hearing—and we’re happy to have the dialogue. Don’t get me wrong. It is a dialogue that New Zealanders want to have and that we want to have too: what place, what role, might cannabis have in pain relief and routine prescribing medicines? We’re ready to have that dialogue, but we’ll need a lot more filling out as to what it looks like in this bill.

So what we’re hearing is that there’ll be domestically cultivated and manufactured cannabis. That would presume that it’s also leaf cannabis. But one of the interesting questions is: where do you source it from? Well, if we go to a statement in the Taranaki Daily News, it tells us: “Eventually patients with a prescription would be able to access medicinal cannabis products at a pharmacy.” That’s kind of interesting—at a pharmacy. So if you’re going to be able to cultivate cannabis, pharmacies are going to be dispensing loose-leaf cannabis. That’s going to need a lot of thought. I’ll come to those who weren’t consulted, but if that is in the vision, I think you should’ve consulted with pharmacists, as well. I’ll go to the list of people you didn’t consult—we can see who you did—but, surprisingly, if pharmacists are a key here, they weren’t consulted.

If it is loose-leaf and if it is going to be smoked, let’s look at that. How is that going to work with our smoke-free New Zealand goals? What’s that going to look like—yeah? How is that going to align with those goals? How is it going to recognise that cannabis, when it’s smoked, is often mixed with tobacco—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I’m sorry to interrupt the member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to return and continue the narrative on this bill, which I’ve broken down into three parts.

First of all, the very first part, the cannabidiol, I’d already explained that it has our support. In fact, we did most of the heavy lifting—we think, anyway, previously—so completely happy with that. We understand that there are very few preparations on the market, but hopefully they will eventually come to market—so, yes, no trouble there.

I was then discussing the second part, which was the cannabis framework. We were hearing for the first time, in the Minister’s narrative, that potentially this could also include loose-leaf marijuana, and I was recalling an article from the Taranaki Daily News saying that yes, the medicinal scheme will have marijuana dispensed by pharmacists. I was making that case, OK that’s kind of interesting. So pharmacists could be dispensing loose-leaf marijuana. Where that took me to was if that marijuana is then going to be smoked, what are the implications for the Smoke-free Environments Act, what are the implications for second-hand smoking? There’s a whole lot of depth to this whole discussion that isn’t at all apparent in the bill. I do understand that the select committee fills this out and fleshes it out, but I would’ve thought important statements like that, that maybe loose-leaf marijuana is part of the medicinal scheme, should be included up front. If pharmacists are going to be dispensing, they should be consulted, you’d have thought.

So let’s then move on to compassionate cannabis. In a very general sense, let’s talk about who wasn’t consulted in this area. Compassionate cannabis—that’s what I’ll call it—introduces more cannabis into the community, and we can talk about how that might be but, regardless, there potentially is more cannabis in the community. You’d have thought corrections might be worth speaking to; that’s one agency you might’ve wanted to talk to. Maybe WorkSafe and the Occupational Safety and Health Service might’ve been worth speaking to, maybe transport; a lot of terminal care patients are still able to drive. Maybe transport should’ve been spoken with, and certainly pharmacies, as I said.

Let’s break out the compassionate cannabis discussion a little bit more. So for terminal care patients, terminal in the last 12 months of their life—probably doable; other jurisdictions have, but challenging. As a doc, I’m telling you it’s challenging to say you’d take a guess as to how long people might be able to live, but not insurmountable. Other jurisdictions have figured it out; I’m sure we can too, generally coming up with a list of conditions that might lead into that sort of discussion.

Now then, consideration of compassionate cannabis: again, a very strong indication that it’s going to allow cultivated leaf. That’s going to create some of the issues that we talked about before. Again, where would you source it? Would it be from a marijuana clinic or from a pharmacist? Do you grow it yourself? What’s that going to look like? These should’ve been at least put up there for discussion points in the initial regulations.

I’ve already mentioned some of the issues of smoke-free New Zealand. I also wanted to consider for a moment, if you just picture the logistics, let’s say it’s dispensed from a pharmacist. So you go to the pharmacist, you meet the criteria, terminal care, it’s dispensed from a pharmacist, you pick it up, you go to pay for it, you hand across your credit card. No, you don’t, because those of you who know the American system know they don’t accept credit cards. Credit card companies won’t touch this with a barge pole. It’s a cash-only economy. But that’s OK, because you’ve spoken with the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs and the Minister of Revenue. Oh, wait, you haven’t. That’s right, this is news to you. This is the first time you’re hearing that it’s cash-only in the US, because the credit card companies won’t touch it. That’s kind of interesting. You’d have thought if you consulted further you’d have found out those sorts of things.

I think what’s also interesting in your medicinal cannabis scheme is that one of the criteria is that it’s beneficial to the patient. What are the criteria we have for compassionate cannabis? That they are terminal in 12 months. Do I hear or see any indication that it might be beneficial? Zero. This would be the only jurisdiction in the world where there is no requirement for a doctor or any registered medical practitioner to also say, “The patient is likely to benefit.” Do we really want that prize? Do we really want to be the only jurisdiction in the world that says, “Nah, the only criteria you have to have is that you’ve got 12 months’ life expectancy.” That doesn’t make sense. That would’ve been an easy thing to put up front, because almost certainly that is something that the select committee will come to.

I think, in summary, this just shows this bill’s been hurried, clearly to meet the 100-day requirements and the 100-day targets that they’re looking to reach. I’ve pointed out a number of things. In summary, we support the cannabidiol. Personally, the cannabis framework we’ll also support, and I support it, too.

I just want to give you an indication of how I’m thinking of it: it’s just a drug. Cannabis is just a drug, like any other medicine. It’s just a drug. It’s just a medicine. Therefore, it needs a half-life, it needs a metabolic profile. Show me how much you take, what it does in your bloodstream. It’s just another medicine. On that basis, I’m happy to support it through. As it initially looked in the legislation, it’s all around quality standards, it’s all around a quality product. Well, show me a quality medicine and absolutely you have our support.

Compassionate cannabis, the third part to this—I understand the principle to it, a lot of work needs to go into this. It’s way too vague at the moment. There are things we’re hearing today that are new to us that we’ll need to think on. That’s going to need a lot of work to have my support to this and for our support, but we’re certainly ready to have the dialogue in this whole discussion. We’re not afraid of the dialogue and the discussion around medicinal cannabis, but it needs a lot of work. Thank you.

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi o Te Tau Hou ki a koe. A very happy New Year to you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to stand and speak on behalf of New Zealand First on the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill.

Medicinal cannabis is an emotive and controversial subject. Most people have a position that fits into one of two categories: either they’re emphatically for it or they’re defiantly against it. Now, either of these positions forms a point of view that is steeped in emotion. Those that are against medicinal cannabis say that any form of change to the law only provides the hippies and the dopers with a pathway to legalisation. However, those of us who have watched loved ones pass from cancer and other illnesses like that understand the desire to help and support a less painful end of life phase. New Zealand First believes the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill shows compassion to those dying in terrible pain. Now, this is why New Zealand First will support this piece of legislation.

Just taking a look at the general policy statement in the bill’s explanatory note, the bill will amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. It will introduce an exception and a statutory defence for terminally ill people to possess and use illicit cannabis and to possess a cannabis utensil. It’ll also provide a regulation-making power to enable the setting of standards that products manufactured, imported, and supplied under licence must meet. We also note that it will amend schedule 2 of the Act so that cannabidiol—that’s the CBD—and CBD products are no longer classed as controlled drugs.

Like many people, I have a story to tell. I’m not a doctor, and I acknowledge the doctors that have spoken in the House today already on this topic, but I have a personal story relating to cancer and the passing of my mother. My story is like many of those that have this very same story; it’s not a unique story, unfortunately it’s a very common tale. It’s a story of a slow and an excruciating end. It’s about the darkness of pain that strips dignity, the darkness of pain that bears humanity, and the darkness of pain that brings unbearable suffering that in the end removes life itself.

As a child, I watched in horror as breast cancer wiped the laughter and the joy from my mother. Her creative spark of life was extinguished as survival for the quest of healing became her sole focus. As one of five children, we watched our very own worst nightmare unveil itself in broad daylight. My mother had five children, and we watched Helen’s pain and suffering, and it was so great that we were sent away to a safe place, farmed out to the care of family and foster homes as our mother went about the business of trying not to die. She was in such intense pain that the adults at the time decided that it was much better for these children, these five Marcroft children, to not see their mother in this state. But I wonder, if she had been able to access something like medicinal cannabis, something that was going to be able to alleviate her pain, maybe her children would have been able to stay with her during her final months. Maybe she wouldn’t have been on her own, without her children, as she faced her death. And perhaps the agony that she braved wouldn’t be for ever imprinted in my DNA or in my heart.

Thousands of New Zealanders die every year from cancer. We don’t know how many choose to use medicinal cannabis for analgesia, for pain relief, but we do know that more research is needed. There is a substantial amount of anecdotal evidence, and strong research needs to sit alongside this. This bill is a tightening of the focus around the use of medicinal cannabis. It’s a very good start. It’s a small shift, and it will enable more time to investigate all aspects of this issue.

New Zealand First is very interested to hear at select committee from all manner of submitters. Law changes must be made to reflect the changing values and needs of a just society. This piece of legislation will do exactly that. New Zealand First is supporting this bill also because it legalises CBD but not the psychoactive substance THC.

Just looking now at a piece of science, and this is from the New Zealand Medical Association—their medicinal cannabis position statement. It reads: “The leaves and flowers of cannabis contain ... at least 100 different phytocannabinoids: the two major constituents [being] tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). THC is responsible for most of the psychoactive properties of cannabis, including effects sought by recreational users. CBD has ... properties and may moderate some of the psychoactive effects of [the] THC.”

Also to note, although I may not be a doctor I have a most excellent general practitioner. According to my doctor—Dr Kate Baddock, who is also the chair of the New Zealand Medical Association board—in her commentary on cannabis, in the NZMJ Digest of July 2017, she writes that “CBD is well tolerated in doses of up to 1500 mg a day and has a role as an anticonvulsant in intractable epilepsy, and as a muscle relaxant for spasm as seen in multiple sclerosis. As CBD is an allosteric modulator of both the mu- and delta-opioid receptors, it also has a role in alleviating chronic pain.”

This is the thing. It’s the chronic pain and the potential criminal convictions. These are the two issues making criminals of dying people. These are the emotive issues. This is the issue that has galvanised a population. These are the issues that have made headlines in our media.

I would just like to tell you Andy’s story. Andy was a 60-year-old New Zealander. A very average, typical Kiwi. He, of course, suffered cancer and started wasting away. He was really distressed that the only relief he could find was by smoking some marijuana. He hated the fact that he was committing a crime, and so he told none of his friends or his family about what he was doing, but it was giving him some pain relief. Also, he was wasting away. He had no appetite, and it stimulated his appetite. So he was able to have some dignity at the end, through using an illegal substance. All his friends—he thought they didn’t know, but they actually kept his secret, as well. So they too were part of that little conspiracy. He never talked about smoking the weed, but he was able to find some relief from it.

The fear of prosecution was a reality for everyone involved in his story. So here we have a group of family, and also a group of friends, keeping Andy’s cannabis secret while he literally, over a period of time, died before their eyes.

There are those who will point to a lack of research into CBD, and that has merit, because it’s difficult to measure an illegal activity with accuracy. The scientific community will be keenly watching this space, along with Australia and 25 other countries who are legalising CBD for medicinal use.

So now I’d like to sum up New Zealand First’s position on this bill. We support the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill. We support the aim to reduce the pain and suffering of those afflicted with terminal illness. We believe the bill reflects the values of many New Zealanders, and it balances compassion and the obvious legal problems with a very reasonable approach. We support the decision to allow only CBD and not THC. We do not support blanket legalisation of all cannabis. We point to the overwhelming evidence of the harms of THC to our country, specifically to our developing youth, and the harm of drug-driving. We hope, though, that the scientific community provides more research. With better understanding comes better application of sensible laws, and we support the approach of a regulatory body to produce standards for domestic production and imported medicines.

So we believe that this bill will take a small step, not a giant leap, and New Zealand First will support this bill, the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill. Kia ora koutou.

Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. The speaker who has just sat down, Jenny Marcroft, is absolutely right. There’s been so much discussion about this issue and about this bill, that some of the things that we’ve talked about tonight, that we expected to see in the bill, aren’t there.

During the 2017 election, Labour actively campaigned on introducing legislation, and I quote what they said, “Legislation to make medicinal cannabis available for people with terminal illness and those in chronic pain.” When asked on one of the TV debates, the leader Jacinda Ardern—she was asked, “Would Labour legalise cannabis for medicinal use?” And what did she say? “Absolutely; yes.”

But this bill, which was rushed through so it could get into the 100 days, so that Labour could say they’ve got some runs on the board, so that they could be seen to be trying to keep their election promises, does neither of these things. And it’s actually contrary to the Minister’s statements. It does not make cannabis available for people with terminal illnesses and it certainly doesn’t even attempt to consider people with chronic pain—absolutely not.

All it does is create a statutory defence for the possession and use of illicit cannabis by people who are terminally ill and expected by the doctors to die within 12 months. But that doesn’t make medicinal cannabis legal. It doesn’t address access. It doesn’t address availability. It doesn’t address the quality of the product. And it certainly doesn’t address affordability. It doesn’t even provide a legal way for terminally ill patients to get the medicines that they require.

What it does do is to say that if you’re terminally ill—very, very ill—and you can manage to negotiate to purchase and possess cannabis, the State won’t convict you. This bill has been rushed. It’s ill-thought-out. It’s all about feel-good, but it will make very little difference to the status quo, and it is certainly not what the Labour Party promised. In fact, the Dominion Post, in their editorial, called it “a halfway house of legal and moral horrors”, and I agree.

It’s no wonder that campaigners who believed Labour’s election rhetoric have been hugely disappointed by the outcome, especially because the bill completely ignores anyone who needs medicinal cannabis for pain relief or any other specific purposes—in fact, anyone that’s not in their last year of life. Of course, the vast majority of people who want this option are certainly not dying right now. Campaigners would rather see a wider definition—a definition that includes those with on-going severe or debilitating conditions, as well as the terminally ill, and I would support that. From my experience of working in the disability sector, the needs of those people should be included.

The other two parts of the bill really have no real effect for anybody who wants medicinal cannabis right now. There is an intention to set up a medical cannabis scheme, but absolutely no detail—the work hasn’t been done—and then there’s the confirmation of the regulations that were passed last year that cannabinoids are no longer considered a controlled drug. So National does support this bill, but sees it for what it is: an interim measure; a stop-gap. It’s no real hard solution. There’s much more research to be done and much more work that is needed.

Just listening to the discussion in the House, nobody wants people to be in pain as they die, and this bill, while untidy and ineloquent, is a step forward. But what we really need, and what we were falsely promised, is far more far-reaching legislation—legislation that tackles legal supply, quality of product, affordability, and particularly a mechanism that appropriately matches patients with medicinal needs. Just loosening up the availability of illegal loose leaf, which isn’t quality controlled and is often smoked—which is another health hazard—doesn’t cut the mustard.

The key, of course, is to separate and utilise the cannabidiol, which has the potential therapeutic effect, from the THC, which has the psychoactive component, and for that we need a lot more research and work. So National sees this bill as a tentative step in the right direction, and I support it to go to select committee, where we might beat it into some sort of shape. Kia ora.

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I rise to speak on the first reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill.

This is an issue that is very close to my heart. As health spokesperson for the Green Party, I spent most of 2017 campaigning to legalise the medicinal use of cannabis. As part of that campaign, I met with and spoke with many, many patients who are currently using cannabis for medicinal purposes, who are currently forced to break the law in order to get relief that has been far greater for them than what is commonly prescribed. It has fewer side effects, and it should be something that is affordable and available, legal and safe.

The more one looks into the issue, the more it is completely unfathomable that we have, for so long, denied patients access to what is a low-key, effective, and very safe plant that can reduce serious symptoms associated with multiple sclerosis, chronic pain, and migraines; that can reduce nausea and stimulate appetite; that can assist with sleep—and all of that with far fewer harmful side effects than many legally available and commonly prescribed pharmaceutical drugs.

Last year I met a man who has been paralysed for nearly 20 years due to a spinal cord injury, and he’s been bedridden most of that time. He was on a huge cocktail of expensive, prescribed pharmaceutical drugs that left him in a fog and pretty much incapacitated him. Many of the drugs that he was taking led to other harmful side effects, which led to a series of other complications. Now his life had been completely transformed by a group of very kind and compassionate New Zealanders who put themselves at risk to illegally supply him with medicinal cannabis products, which had enabled him to stop taking as many pharmaceutical drugs and to be much more aware and engaged with his friends and family. When you see that first hand, it’s extremely difficult to understand why it is we continue to take a very punitive approach to this one particular plant, cannabis. It doesn’t make any sense.

Now, I want to be clear that the medicinal use of cannabis—because many people are confused about this—does not involve smoking weed, and it certainly doesn’t involve smoking it to get high. I met, through my campaign, a number of women, for example—some of whom are patients themselves—who were producing a range of products at home using very precise recipes. These products included cannabidiol (CBD) oil, tincture of cannabis, balms, which you just rub on your skin that relieve pain, and a range of edible products like chocolate, cookies, brownies, butter—usually with strains of the cannabis plant that are very high in CBD.

These products are currently illegal, but they have been legal in overseas jurisdictions for more than a decade, and so we have plenty of evidence that they are safe, and they would be even more safe if they were able to be regulated. Some may say, “Oh, but they’re home-made. The dosages of THC and CBD may vary slightly. Don’t we need a pharma-grade product that we can purchase from the chemist?” Of course, the actual quantities of CBD and THC could be tested well enough without it being pharma-grade, but it’s notable that the vast majority of jurisdictions that have legalised the medicinal use of cannabis have not relied simply upon pharmaceutical-grade products, which are very expensive and still have a lot of research to be done.

Canada and 29 US states have legalised the medicinal use of cannabis, beginning about 20 years ago in some of them. Those laws allow for home cultivation and production, and they have rules around it about the number of plants that patients are allowed to grow, or who’s allowed to grow them on behalf of the patients. They also have laws that have set up standards for commercial products that recognise that cannabis is a safe herbal remedy, and while there will doubtless be a role for pharma-grade medicines, particularly for very precise issues like treating children for seizures where you do need very specific dosages, most of the medicinal use currently happening illegally in New Zealand is by adults. Many of them—in fact, I think the largest share of them—are women who are between the ages of 40 and 65, and they’re using it for conditions like chronic pain, and pain treatment is very subjective. It’s the sort of thing that people simply work out with their doctors. It’s a trial and error process. The specific dosage isn’t that important, because there is no risk of fatal overdose, and that is quite contrary to many of the alternative products that are available to them, like prescription painkillers or sleeping aids.

Now, the good news about this bill, and why the Green Party is happy to support it, is that it will set up a medicinal cannabis scheme, and despite what the National Party members have been saying tonight in their speeches, this goes way further than anything they did in the nine years they were in Government. So, finally, we will be able to have domestic cultivation and production of the types of non-pharmaceutical grade medicinal cannabis products that have been available overseas for over a decade. This should make them more accessible and affordable to many patients, provided they have a prescription from a registered medical practitioner. And it will, of course, support a new sustainable industry in New Zealand, and will enable the possibility of advanced research that could lead to more pharmaceutical-grade products being available. So this is very much a step in the right direction, and the Green Party will be supporting it for that reason.

However, as has been noted by many National Party members, this bill does not go far enough to protect patients and enable choice, and so I look forward to many of the members who spoke tonight on this bill voting for the Green Party’s member’s bill in the name of Chlöe Swarbrick tomorrow, which does go that step further. Fundamentally, the medicinal use of cannabis should not be a crime, and what happens in this bill is there is a legal defence, so if somebody is taken to court on their deathbed, they’ll be able to plead not guilty on the basis—or plead for a compassionate approach because they’re on their deathbed.

But what about that man I told you about that has been bedridden for 20 years? He wouldn’t be able to plead such a defence, nor would the people supplying him with products. Many, many people wrote to me during the campaign last year and told me about their specific circumstances. Some of them were patients who suffered from multiple sclerosis, who have been using cannabis illegally, again, for the last year or two, who have to deal in the black market, who have to rely on other people sometimes to take their own safety into their own hands and be at risk because they have to deal on the black market. So this defence—it isn’t enough. That’s why I would plead to all members in this House to seriously consider voting for Chlöe Swarbrick’s member’s bill tomorrow so that it can go to select committee and be heard.

My partner’s 96-year-old grandmother told us last year that she remembered going to the chemist in Milford in the 1930s to pick up her mother’s prescription for cannabis and lighting it for her to inhale to alleviate her asthma. There was never good evidence to make this type of medicinal use illegal. Instead, it was a moral panic in the middle of the 20th century that was led by the United States to make cannabis illegal. And that restricted the ability, for nearly a century, for scientists and medical professionals to properly study the potential health applications of this very useful plant. What we do know is that it is broadly safe. There’s no risk of fatal overdose, there’s very low risk of physical dependency, and it’s a far better alternative, for some people, to what is currently available as a pharmaceutical product.

I thank the Government parties for at least making progress on this issue. I hope that this House will seriously consider taking an approach that is modelled on the successful approach that has been adopted in other jurisdictions and proven to work, which is simply to no longer criminalise the medicinal use of cannabis. Kia ora.

Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. Happy New Year. It’s great to be back. It’s great to see you back in the seat this year. My intention is not to take up too much of the House’s time. It’s clear that there is a lot of support for this bill. I just want to point out a few key points, for me, that, as a member of the Health Committee—if it does go to that select committee, which I’m assuming it will—I would like to explore a bit further.

I would like to acknowledge the Minister, the Hon Dr David Clark. I wish him well this term for his endeavours in the health portfolio. It is something that’s dear to a lot of people’s hearts, quite rightly, in New Zealand. When I used to work in the UK, they used to say that the Brits didn’t really have much of an affinity to religion other than soccer and the National Health Service (NHS). I’m not sure we are as fanatical about our district health boards as they are of the NHS, but it sure elicits a lot of emotion, and quite rightly, because we are talking about people’s health and their well-being.

This debate is about severing a somewhat highly charged debate around recreational use as against medicinal use. What I’d like to explore in the select committee is around this term “medicinal cannabis”. There’s a lot of thought out there about whether cannabis can go through the process that other medicines do. Can it truly be measured around efficacy and effect or is it just a cannabis product? I’m looking forward to exploring that.

What we do in the broader cannabis debate—we’ve got one side that says, you know, “It’s all bad.”; we’ve got one side that says, “It never hurt me; I’ve been smoking all my life.” The answer is probably in the middle, really—and it’s understanding that, in fact, it’s quite a circular argument but we can learn.

My feeling is we should proceed very cautiously around any liberalisation of cannabis, even in the medical realm. We should proceed cautiously because there is still very little evidence. But, in saying that, we don’t need to be doing things in isolation. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel. Nowadays there is a lot of international policy that we can be learning from, and there is an accruing field of international evidence. I really do hope in the select committee that we will have time to start to understand other jurisdictions and where they’ve moved and what we can learn from that.

I’m not too sure when it says in the bill that “measures are intended to approve access to medicinal cannabis and are guided by the principles of fairness, quality … safety, and compassion.” I think the pure fact that they have to reference the Government’s 100-day plan multiple times in the start of the bill—I think this is more about a bill that’s trying to fit into the box of the 100-day plan. In fact, it’s probably quite hurried, it’s quite rushed, and, in fact, I think the Government could have actually said, “We don’t have it right, here. We could’ve waited a bit longer.” But, of course, they’ve got the 100-day plan and they want to comply to that and—you know, perception’s reality, and it’s all looking good, but I think it’s going to have to be knocked round a lot more in select committee.

I want to drill down a bit more around this issue around chronic pain. There seems to be a bit conflicting advice—you know, it’s not going to operate in the chronic pain area—around the lack of a definition, but when you look at Ministry of Health guidelines, there is terminology around severe or debilitating conditions that could be used rather than the terminal 12-month mark at the moment. So I’d really like to explore the chronic pain bit a bit more. Of course, the diagnosis of 12-months’ terminal illness is going to be problematic in itself. How do you accurately reflect when someone is in the last year of their life?

I’d also like to hear from the police in the select committee. It sounds like they have said that it’s essential the provisions are workable—I did read that somewhere—and, quite rightly. I think we are going to set up a situation where, potentially, it might take more resource of police time to fully investigate whether someone has a valid defence of why they are using cannabis at this time.

As you can hear there are a lot more questions. It feels like the bill will be passed tonight, and I’m looking forward, through the select committee process, to really knock this bill into shape, which, potentially, it should have come to the House in in the first place.

I call Dr Liz Craig—five minute call.

Thanks, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s an absolute privilege to be speaking on the first reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill, which is going to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975.

In speaking, I would like to acknowledge a wonderful colleague known to many of us, and that was Helen Kelly. In the months before she died in 2016, of cancer, she shared her journey with many of us in New Zealand. I think in that way, she became a very powerful advocate for medicinal cannabis, because what she found is that, even though she was on strong opiates, it was really only with cannabis that she could become pain free.

In the last few weeks, I’ve been contacted by quite a large number of people, as have many of us. Many of them don’t actually have a terminal illness; what they’ve got is chronic neurological conditions: you know, spinal injuries, cerebral palsy—either sharing what’s happening to them or their families. A lot of them have been sharing the fact that their standard pain relief is not working and the transformational effects of having access to cannabis.

I was particularly touched by a gentleman who contacted me yesterday. He was talking about the fact that he’d been prescribed morphine, he’d been prescribed tramadol—a whole lot of class A drugs. None of them were working and he was just getting lots and lots of side effects, and so he was using cannabis. He was saying that using cannabis relieved his pain for three to five hour blocks at a time. Some of the language he was using: “and then just the pain returning, the pain that won’t stop day or night.” What he was also talking about was just that whole stress of having to get his family to go out and access that cannabis for him, and the difficulty that was creating. And, again, talking about them risking their freedom “being taken away for me and my pain”. So this is a real issue that we need to do something about.

This bill will go a long way towards addressing this issue. The first thing it’s going to do is it’s going to create that overarching regulatory environment, so that we can put in place standards for the production of medicinal cannabis. That means that users will have access to high-quality product.

The other thing is that we’ve got this world-wide shortage of usable cannabis, because the problem is it’s really hard to do big, randomised control trials in overseas countries where cannabis is actually illegal. So we’re actually operating in an environment where we’ve not got the actual evidence base that a lot of other drugs have in terms of a pure agent and its effectiveness and being able to do trials where you withhold it or give it to one group or another.

What this bill will do is it will give manufacturers a clear set of standards so they can have confidence that if they invest in their research and development and they meet those standards, they can actually have a product that’s marketable. In that way, it will open up the doors for us to create a domestic manufacturing base so that we can get on and grow but then manufacture standard cannabis products.

The other thing it’ll do is it’ll amend schedule 2 of the Act so that cannabidiol is no longer classified as a controlled drug but just as a prescription medicine. Some of that’s already been addressed in the regulations, but this then just sorts out the legislative side of it. And, while not specifically mentioned in the bill itself, within that regulatory environment the plan is to set up an advisory committee, and that advisory committee will be doctors, nursing staff, users, and stakeholders really having a look at how we then prescribe in an effective and safe way in terms of how we move forward.

But the problem we’ve got is it’ll take a little while to get this set up. I think Australia’s doing something similar, and it’s taken them just over two years to get to a point where they might have some product on the market. And so in the meantime the bill introduces a statutory defence for terminally ill people, so that if they are using illicit cannabis they don’t have that fear of prosecution for what they’re doing in terms of pain relief. I guess the question, though, that has come a lot up a lot is: does this bill go far enough? Because it confers those protections for those who are terminally ill, so likely to pass away in the next year—but my question is—when we get select committee, I’d like to have a look at whether we can expand that to those with chronic neurological conditions, cerebral palsy, and some of those other severe conditions, and consider whether there’s evidence enough to be able to extend those protections to them.

So I think it’s a very good bill. It takes it a lot further than we’ve been to date, and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Simon O’Connor—a five-minute call.

Thank you very much. I’m pleased to take a call on this Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill. Look, it’s no surprise to the House that I’m opposed to recreational use of cannabis, which is why, actually, I support, at this first reading, this bill. I support this bill for a very particular reason to go to select committee in the first reading: because if it’s done right the bill actually has the potential to clearly delineate between recreational, effectively, pot smoking—for whatever good reason or intention or otherwise—and cannabinols that are used in a proper medical fashion.

The key part of the bill that the Hon Dr David Clark’s put forward, and why it gets my support, again, at this stage, is it seeks to set up a proper regulated framework for using cannabinols. I’m not going to get into all the technicalities. I know a lot of people are throwing out the various acronyms, and so forth. I don’t think we should be bamboozled by them; in fact, I encourage people to go and look at them closely—but we are talking particularly about cannabinols. So what we want here is a framework that treats this product—this plant—like any other real medicine, and I want to put on the record that there is absolutely nothing exceptional about cannabis compared to any other plant that we derive pharmaceutical products from.

So, as I say, we have a real opportunity here, Minister, to be able to create a proper framework, because real medicine works in a scientific framework. It’s a framework that’s rational. It’s repeatable. It’s measurable. As I say, it’s a framework that’s scientific. It’s medical. It’s pharmacological. It’s a framework that does not, and never does, accept anecdotes and hearsay. It’s a framework where quality and quantity are accurately known, where medicine is properly dispensed and titrated. Put, perhaps, simply in another way, putting the word “medicinal” in front of something doesn’t make it a medicine, OK? There is a medicinal LSD push in the UK at the moment, and I may have joked somewhat to Green Party members that “medical meth” is really good for depression—briefly!

So if we are to develop, Minister, a regulated framework where cannabinols are treated like any other proper medicine, in the rational, reasonable, scientific sense, then I think we’re on to a winner. I suspect the Minister knows that already, as do those who have worked in the health field, because we have the likes of Sativex and Tilray, and they’re making a real difference in really particular areas. If that’s not where this bill goes—if we fall into, effectively, a deliberate delusion that is using the suffering of some to justify the recreational pot use of others—then we are in, I would suggest, a rather abusive situation. As I’ve said before, you don’t smoke medicine any more than you huff ibuprofen. So we do have an opportunity here. I commend the Minister for bringing this. There are multiple problems, I would suggest, with a whole lot of elements in the bill, but this particular area, the opportunity to create a proper medical, pharmacological framework, is a real opportunity for people.

I suspect my final comment may be out of scope not so much of this reading but of the bill. It comes down to funding what’s already out there. There are proper medical, pharmacological products out there in the cannabinol space. Getting access to those through funding is probably the first pragmatic step in moving down the line of just making this particular, non-exceptional plant available.

Let’s take what is out there already, the likes of the Tilrays and the Sativexes—I’d better be clear. I don’t have any particular links to those products: they’re ones that are accepted at the moment. Let’s find the funding for those. And I’ve been out in the community over the last few years, when I was chair of the Health Committee. It was one of the things that was very clearly articulated: let’s have the funding for it first. So on that very particular point—that we have a framework potential here to be developed—I support this bill to select committee, and will follow it closely.

Happy New Year to you, Mr Speaker. I’m delighted to stand and take a call on this, the first conscience vote of 2018. Indeed, the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill is part of one of those polarising conversations. We heard it throughout the elections. Weed, pot, dak, reefer, hunas, buds, spliffs, cones, Mary Jane, marijuana, and cannabis—drop those words into a conversation at a dinner party and note the division at the table. However, this bill is not about the decriminalisation of marijuana. Wherever people sit in that debate, that is not what we’re discussing today. The Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill is about a very specific set of people using cannabis and cannabinoids. This bill provides a sensible step intended to provide improved access to medicinal cannabis for those that are terminally ill.

This bill amends the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, and we’ve heard this. This bill amends the Act by defining cannabinoids, or CBD, as no longer classed as a controlled drug. I googled “cannabinoid oil”—and I knew I was going to have trouble saying that—and, my goodness, there’s a huge body of information on this product. I agree across the floor that we have insufficient evidence at present. However, it looks hopeful that we have a drug to support those who are terminally ill. This bill also defines what cannabinoid, or CBD, is. There’s four parts to that, and each of those four parts must be included in order for a cannabinoid to actually be a medicinal drug. That, as we’ve heard about, is the medicinal, non-psychoanalytic. In legal terms, therefore, cannabinoid is defined cumulatively in four sections.

Before we get to that product, we need to look at the situation right now, however. Before we get there, we need to look at what we need to do now. The second definition in this bill is incredibly important. This is where the users of cannabis are defined. This bill provides, we have heard, that those who are terminally ill—in this context those persons who can reasonably expect to die within 12 months—are able to use this product. I, like every person here today, would not like to be in that position, and we’ve heard some of those stories today. We do not want to see these people criminalised in the last year of their life. The Labour position—having listened to the community, we have adopted a compassionate view that people who are suffering from terminal illness need access to medicinal cannabis to alleviate their suffering. This is fair. This is the right thing to do, and I believe across the floor we have agreement on that. If someone is suffering from a terminal illness and wishes to use, they can access this form of pain relief. Always remember, taking CBD or cannabis products is the choice of that person who is terminally ill.

This bill also addresses the care of the terminally ill in the near future. This bill makes it clear that you are no longer going to be criminally liable for smoking or using marijuana products. This bill, therefore, gives (a) a defence for the possession of cannabis products, and (b) a defence for the possession of utensils. Please note, however, budding growers out there in Aotearoa, this bill does not make it legal to supply cannabis. We’ve had and heard that.

So, therefore, this bill needs some serious consideration. This is a weighty matter, and I urge members to support this bill to select committee so democracy can be served with people able to have their say. I note also that I sit on the select committee. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this bill, and I commend the Minister. Good on David Clark for bringing it to the House.

I pose the simple question: why shouldn’t a dying person be able to smoke a little dope? What is the gain for the rest of New Zealand in trying to stop them? Because that’s been the policy of New Zealand for quite a long time—60, 70, 80 years now.

I think you can assess any policy by asking three simple questions: what is the intention of the policy, how effective has it been, and what have the unintended consequences been? Well, the effect of prohibiting dying people from smoking cannabis has been ineffective. The intent is to prevent people from smoking cannabis. Well, the effectiveness of it has been almost useless. We know that many, many people in New Zealand smoke cannabis in spite of the law, and we know that many dying people with terminal illnesses also smoke cannabis, so it’s been ineffective. But when it really falls down is when you start to examine the unintended effects of a prohibition on dying people smoking cannabis.

What it’s meant, as we’ve heard from earlier speakers, is that they have to deal with the black market—that they create demand for black market production, that they fund criminal elements in the process of acquiring the cannabis that they smoke, and that they create a product that is more concentrated than it would otherwise be. There’s an incentive for illegal smugglers to create more concentrated products that are easier to smuggle for the value they provide—that’s why the prohibition in the US gave us moonshine, incidentally—and they provide products that are more dangerous because the people supplying them, well, they don’t exactly comply with the Consumer Guarantees Act and they don’t usually give refunds.

So we have a policy on the statute book of New Zealand that prohibits dying people from smoking cannabis and, in the process, is completely ineffectual in achieving its stated aim and, at the same time, forces people to go on to the black market, which they fund—enlarging the criminal sphere—to acquire products that are more highly concentrated and more impure and dangerous than they would otherwise need to be.

I think it’s fair to say that the prohibition on dying people smoking a little dope is nuts. And it’s the right thing to do for this House to be removing that prohibition and, at the same time, introducing a framework that allows people to access that drug of choice, in that circumstance, in a safe and legal way. This makes us a better society in so many ways—not just the compassion for those people who are suffering, but the erosion of the criminal sphere that is forced, by definition, to supply this product.

But the thing about politics is that once you accept the principle, suddenly you find yourself having to ask other questions. And an obvious question in the context of this bill is: why do you have to be dying—not just suffering but dying—in order to access cannabis, which has been accepted, if you support the bill, to be something therapeutic for people in certain conditions.

Why is it that it seems, under this bill, New Zealanders get up to one year of smoking cannabis if they develop a terminal illness? What about all of those people who all the same principles I’ve discussed tonight already apply to? What about those people with chronic illnesses who tell us—and it’s up them to decide; not up to Medsafe, or the Food and Drug Administration, or anyone else to decide—that smoking cannabis alleviates their symptoms? Why don’t we consider, at the select committee stage, expanding the scope of this bill to include people with long-term chronic illnesses that may not be terminal in 12 months?

Maybe people should vote for another bill on members’ day, tomorrow night. But, for now, the ACT Party proudly stands in support of this bill, and I commend it to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I just wish to take a short call. I acknowledge that this is within the 100-day plan, and I congratulate the Government on bringing it forward and the Minister of Health on bringing it forward.

I also acknowledge that, while this wasn’t National Party policy, this side of the House is, in principle, supporting this legislation. And while I’ve heard a lot—and I acknowledge the leader of the ACT Party in his recent comments, because I agree with him—there is a lot of, in this bill, talk about compassionate grounds, and we’ve heard other speakers talking about cancer and suffering. But, actually, this bill does not deal with what I’m most concerned about on top of that, which is pain release from seizures and other things that people have on an ongoing basis.

So, Minister Clark, as you sit here in the House and, as the bastion to nurse this through select committee, I think we have a unique opportunity here where every single party in this House actually supports the essence of this legislation and we should use the select committee process to get it right. And I think you can probably get the whole House’s support if we can find a way of allowing for medical marijuana to be used for chronic pain relief, as well as on compassionate grounds. And I think various colleagues have spoken about treating this as another medicine, and I think that’s how we should look at it. I’m very moved by anecdotal evidence of the difference it can make to certain types of suffering.

As a newbie coming into this House, I’m going to watch with interest how this particular bill goes through the select committee and how it comes out the other end, because I am optimistic that we can find a solution that all parties will support. I think—to the Minister—if the select committee does its job properly, we can have a medical cannabis scheme and we can deliver medical marijuana in a very cost-effective way.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak, and I look forward to the bill going through the select committee process.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. What an incredibly special piece of legislation to be speaking on in this concluding speech on the medicinal cannabis law reform bill. I want to commend my colleague Dr David Clark for bringing this law reform to the House.

And, just for our knowledge, the call for law reform came in 2011. Our Law Commission, recommendation 134, in a report titled Controlling and Regulating Drugs: A Review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 actually highlighted that, as a Parliament, we needed to address this issue. So our law reform will enable us to join countries such as Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Israel, half the US states, and, from two years ago, New South Wales and Victoria.

The interesting thing about the law reform as it stood within those countries has also been the development of economic opportunities. So by 2025, the medicinal cannabis export market is tipped to be valued at nearly $60 billion. So there are opportunities that come from this piece of legislation in addition to what we’re trying to do, which is to provide a remedy for people who have terminal conditions where, actually, cannabis is providing the relief that they need to exist, to live with chronic pain, and to live with a circumstance that is incredibly debilitating. I have to admit that I have lived in a household with someone who had a chronic condition and they had to have marijuana almost on a daily basis to be able to exist. That person worked full-time; they participated fully in society, but for them to get a decent night’s sleep, actually, they had to use marijuana. There wasn’t anything else that could mitigate the devastating consequences of their particular illness.

So in preparing for the debate tonight, I looked at when there was the first recorded mention of cannabis in any form of encyclopaedia, and I found a reference. It was published in 2700 BC, and it was an encyclopaedia by the Emperor Shen Neng called The Great Herbal. I was talking to my colleague Raymond Huo about it. The classification of cannabis as a medicinal plant, as a medicinal, medical, and therapeutic tool—in cough syrups, as a digestive aid, as a pain killer—actually, throughout our history, is recorded. It was only in the 1930s that we changed that designation and there was a prohibition. In addition to cannabis, there was a prohibition on opiates. But the reality of cannabis is that it has historically been used and recognised for its medicinal qualities.

I think the problem that we all have today is that some people don’t use it as a medicinal tool or a medicinal aid. Some people do like using it for recreational issues and for spiritual purposes or whatever, and it’s not medicinal in nature. I think it’s really important to focus on the purpose of this piece of legislation and the purpose of using cannabis as a medicinal tool. I noted some of the comments by my colleague Simon O’Connor, and I know that as a previous chair of the Health Committee they addressed a petition under the name of William Rea—remember that petition?

So this Parliament has actually dedicated quite a bit of time to that Law Commission recommendation, to the call from the public, and now we have a Government and a Minister who has responded, and we have prioritised this issue. So we make no—what’s the right word? We’re really proud that it was included in our 100-day plan. Some people may criticise us for that and say this isn’t a priority, but the reality is it is a priority, and for us to stand with people in our community, those with terminal illnesses who need the support of this product, I think, is incredibly important for them.

We have heard about people who have got multiple sclerosis, we’ve heard about people who’ve got dilating blood vessels, and there are issues about people who have bone growth issues, and medicinal cannabis does provide a protection for damaged brain cells, it does interfere with certain types of cancer cells, it prevent seizures, and it controls muscle spasticity. There are so many remedies and treatments—or ailments, I should say—that medicinal cannabis is effective for that it just seems, you know, beyond time that this Parliament is actually addressing this issue.

I did manage to find one piece of clinical research, and it was from a Canadian study. The researcher was Dr Mark Ware, who’s also an associate professor from McGill University in Montreal. What they did was they looked at how marijuana could relieve chronic nerve pain—so, people who had injuries, people who had undergone surgeries—and the reality of the evidence was that having three puffs of this product, this cannabinoid product, reduced pain and people were able to sleep better. So anybody who actually has any issues about cannabis being used as a medicinal aid really needs look at the evidence.

From what I’ve heard in the House tonight, there seems to be general consensus about the issue. I certainly look forward, as a member of the Health Committee, to hearing the evidence. I’m pretty hopeful that the Parliament will pass this issue, because, like many people, I have watched and heard from people who are most affected by a lack of access to medicinal cannabis.

One of the things I did want to highlight in my contribution was that the Australians have now approved for their cannabinoid or their medicinal cannabis products to be exported, and that was literally on 5 January. So if people are worried about a supply, then they need not be, because we have access just across the Tasman, and it’s one of the things I think we should be collaborating with our Australian cousins on, because they have an aspiration to be the number one medicinal cannabis supplier in the world, and I do think there’s an opportunity for us to collaborate and work with them.

I just wanted to highlight that we do have some clinical trials being undertaken in New Zealand, in Ruatōria, by Hikurangi Hemp. It’s a medical research project. I think their products are about to be harvested in the next couple of months, and by the end of this year they are hoping that they will have a product that you spray, pretty much like Sativex, that can be used in our own market, that’s home-grown, and that we can export to the rest of the world. Jan Logie and I were talking earlier, because Manu Caddie I think has gone on Facebook—it’s a crowdfunding initiative, and they’re asking for different flavours. But the innovation and the opportunity that this piece of legislation provides also provides that broader context and that broader ability for us to stand up in the world and contribute to what is an emerging and growing issue.

I think that natural products and the whole alternative to pharmaceutical products is another issue that we all should think seriously about, and if we want to talk about regional development opportunities, this is potentially one of those.

So I won’t delay the debate much longer, and I really look forward, with my colleagues, to hearing from New Zealanders. So this is a plea: please make submissions, please talk about the relevance of this legislation to you personally, to your family and friends, but also let’s highlight the potential opportunities that now sit before us as a nation. Kia ora.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Health Committee.