Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill

In an earlier intervention I indicated that there were two substantive parts to this bill. Actually, there is a third, and that is the bill’s stated objective to amend schedule 2 of the Act so that cannabidiol and CBD products are no longer classified as controlled. I probably omitted to mention that because, in fact, this is the one part of this bill that I think we can live with. Indeed, that was the intention of the previous Government: to make this particular change. So in addressing clause 4—a significantly amended clause 4, I would add, because the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 177 in the Minister’s name has significantly changed the definitions of both “CBD product” and “terminal illness”. I should just mention, for the record, that while we may not vote for this clause, we certainly are quite relaxed about the change to schedule 2 relating to cannabidiols.

Now, the other part of clause 4 is a much more important clause, both for the select committee, the House, and the submitters, and that is the definition of the conditions that would give rise to an exemption from prosecution under the Misuse of Drugs Act, which, when the bill was introduced, referred to terminal illness—“an illness from which a person can reasonably expect to die within 12 months”. I don’t envy people in, for example, Dr Shane Reti’s position, who have to determine whether or not somebody is in a situation of dying within 12 months and then communicate and articulate that to the terminally ill patient. But, nevertheless, that is what the bill required.

Except, now, the Government has amended that definition, possibly for the very reason that it would be quite difficult for a medical practitioner or a nurse practitioner to actually do that. Now, when the Minister raised this in the second reading last week, it did appear as though the change in the definition would constitute a relaxation, because he talked about the term palliation, and palliation, in the dictionary definition, is any medicine that does not cure someone. And that’s certainly the case for palliative care, but it is by no means the only case. In my second reading speech, I mentioned the possibility that other medicines that have the purpose of palliation could equally come within the ambit of this if the patient also had chronic pain, for example—things like arthritis, diabetes, Parkinson’s, and so on.

We see now, from the Government’s SOP, which I do appreciate the Minister sharing with me prior to this—what’s today? Wednesday; it was Monday afternoon, I think. That was certainly very helpful. I appreciate that. In the amendment to section 2 in proposed clause 4(3), at section 2(1B), the definition now is that if a person requires palliation and, “in the opinion of a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner, the person has an advanced progressive life-limiting condition”—life-limiting condition—“and is nearing the end of their life.”

That certainly rules out the sorts of conditions that I mentioned with some concern in my second reading speech that this could become a stalking horse for the decriminalisation of cannabis products. It definitely does that. In fact, one could argue that it actually potentially tightens up the definition. Twelve months might have been arbitrary, but at least it was something that a practitioner could hang his or her hat on. This is a slightly more focused terminal exemption, because we are now saying they are nearing the end of their life. Now, it depends on the individual situation whether or not you think 12 months is nearing the end of a life or 12 weeks, but, indeed, it certainly doesn’t constitute a loosening. And that was the view of Medical Cannabis Awareness New Zealand, who issued a press release almost immediately expressing patients’ concern around the definition of “palliation” as expressed in the SOP.

This is where, I have to say, there is definitely an opportunity lost for the sort of collaboration that I thought could have been possible with this bill. And it’s for this reason: MCANZ—Medical Cannabis Awareness New Zealand—were very disappointed that the sorts of conditions that they listed in their press release, things like Parkinson’s, motor neurone disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, etc.—these are quite terrible conditions, but ones which it would not, for most patients, be considered that they were approaching the end of their life.

And here’s where the opportunity is lost, because I reckon I would have been able to convince my colleagues to support a widening of the definition of the exemption from prosecution to include conditions like this—and it was certainly a conversation that we were having with the Green Party member Chlöe Swarbrick—if there was a sunset clause. So, actually, if this was a temporary thing—which is exactly what the purpose of the bill said: remember, this was a compassionate measure until quality, affordable products were available. Therefore, by definition, in the general policy statement, it wasn’t going to be an unlimited time frame; there was going to be a limit on the exemption. I reckon I could have convinced my caucus to widen the definition of the exemption from prosecution if we knew that it had a finite period.

But our approach through the select committee about a sunset clause and directly to the Minister after the bill was reported back was met with a deafening silence. And that’s really sad, because there are a huge number of people who think they should be subject to the exemption, and they’re not. And they could have been. They could have been if we had acknowledged that the Government’s goal of making this temporary was delivered by the agreement to a sunset clause.

So I’m going to invite the Minister to reflect on whether or not he would agree even now to Dr Shane Reti’s SOP 179, which is carefully crafted to make sure that it is a reasonable period of time—not too long that people become dependent on an illegal substance, but not too short to make it unworkable. The Minister’s 12-month time frame for the regulations to be put in place to provide for the medicinal cannabis scheme, and then the 12 months that the industry has told us is the minimum time they would need to implement and develop the manufacturing processes, plus another six months wiggle room, because there’s always slippage—his SOP does that. And, indeed, then we could support clause 4, where a terminal illness exemption prevailed.

We want to have that conversation—the separate conversation—about decriminalising cannabis more generally in another forum, but we are prepared to accept that if it means there’s a good licensing regime and it’s time bound, we could live with a terminal exemption, even with a broader scope, if the Minister was prepared to support Dr Reti’s SOP 179. There’s still time, there’s still an opportunity for us to collaborate on this bill.

Tēnā koe. I just wanted to speak to a few points that were raised by the Hon Michael Woodhouse. It is “the Hon”—that is correct?

💬 Hon Member: Absolutely.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: OK, cool. Excellent. Thank you. So I just wanted to speak to the points around the demarcation between decriminalisation and what is actually contained in the clause that we’re debating tonight, but also to speak to the points that he’s raised around the expansion of those who would be able to access the criminal defence, but also to the points that he made in summarising around dependency.

On the point around decriminalisation, this is something which we’ve heard continuously throughout this debate: that this bill is somehow decriminalisation of cannabis by stealth. I would like to reiterate that simply all that this bill actually does do is create a criminal defence for those who are receiving palliation, who in turn—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I just ask the member to relate that to clause 4.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: (1B).

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Clause 4.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Yes, clause 4. Contained within clause 4 is new section 2(1B), Madam Chair, on page 3 of Supplementary Order Paper 177: “In this Act, a person ‘requires palliation’ if, in the opinion of a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner, the person has an advanced progressive life-limiting condition”.

Forgive me, Madam Chair, because I also just want to refer to my phone, which was the only item of research that I had available on my person at the time when the Hon Michael Woodhouse was raising his concerns with regard to the definition of palliation and palliative care.

I just wanted to refer him to that well-known organisation the World Health Organization, who defines “palliative care” as “an approach that improves the quality of life of patients and their families facing the problems associated with life-threatening illnesses, through the prevention and relief of suffering by means of early identification and impeccable assessment and treatment of pain and other problems, physical, psychosocial and spiritual.”—i.e., this is for people in their final days and, literally, on their deathbed. I would just like to refer again to the point raised earlier in the debate by the Hon Michael Woodhouse that police aren’t going out there, currently, arresting people who are on their deathbed for smoking a joint, and if that’s the case, there should be no concerns or qualms whatsoever with the National Party in including this criminal defence.

I also wanted to speak more fully to the point that was made around decriminalisation by stealth, because this palliation exemption is solely opening the door to a criminal defence—i.e., still having to be dragged before the court to prove how sick they are—to 25,000 New Zealanders who are currently in palliative care. Decriminalisation of users would go far broader and it is, indeed, something that I have advocated for, as has been brought up in a number of pieces of research and evidence as the best way to actually ensure that we’re using public health funds as sensibly as possible but also actually reducing problems as far as addiction and abuse go, which brings me to my final point, which was raised by the Hon Michael Woodhouse, around the problem of dependency and how we are somehow going to foster people’s dependency—those people who are also in palliative care, i.e., those who are literally on their deathbed.

That we’re somehow going to foster some sense of dependency among the people who are in palliative care, who do have this criminal defence for using medicinal cannabis—on that point, I really just wanted to raise the question with the member, and, indeed, with the rest of the National Party Opposition MPs, about the facts that pertain to other medications that are presently prescribed to people who are in immense pain. The likes of opiates, for example, notably carry far more risk with regard to the ability to overdose but also as far as addiction goes. Notably, this extension to palliation—this extension to criminal defence for palliation—requires certification from the medical practitioner or a nurse practitioner that this person is requiring that palliation. So we are very much in support of this extension from terminal illness to that of palliative care, and, hopefully, I have clarified that for members of the Opposition.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to speak to clause 4, a clause that has several parts to it. The first part talks to cannabidiol (CBD) and the non-psychoactive parts of THC. As was demonstrated in the previous Government, we understand that CBD does have minimal psychoactive effects and we’re supportive towards making it more accessible and affordable. We also understand the entourage or potentiation effect of THC and the inclusion in this clause of “non-psychoactive THC”, which I understand and we are agreeable to.

The other significant part to this clause is the change from “terminal illness” to “palliation”. Now, “terminal illness” was always a bit of a problem. We heard from practitioners and from submitters—but particularly from the practitioners who would be certifying terminal illness—that this could be quite a challenge. Indeed, the statement was made from Dr Tim Molloy, the Chair of the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, that we’re all actually dying, but we understand that he was making the point that his mandate—the people he represents—would struggle with that.

It also was a puzzle to me why that alone was the definition, and why was it not “terminal illness” and “likely to benefit”? That just seemed to be the criterion: if you were terminal, you were able to get access to medicinal cannabis. It seems to me that a prescribing doctor who certified you as terminal was also more than capable of certifying you as likely to benefit.

In the new form, the 12-month “terminal illness” clause has shifted to “palliation”, and that leads to a whole set of discussions around definitions, demonstrated by my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick, who spoke just a moment ago, who spoke about palliative care and then morphed into palliation. It is not clear to us that one is a derivative of another, but the Minister could maybe explain. We presume it is and it would seem that it is, but is “palliative care” “palliation”, and why was “palliation” chosen—anyway, just some clarification there.

But if we look at the criteria for palliation as it’s written in the bill, there are four. First of all, the disease is advanced, it is progressive, it is life-limiting, and the person is near the end of their life. Every single one of these needs some further explanation. “Terminal illness … within 12 months” in clause 4 had challenges, but all four of these conditions have greater challenges and, by far and away, need greater definition.

It also brings us back to the question of why are we, as politicians, deciding which diseases, indirectly, are in and which diseases are out? That doesn’t strike me as something we should be doing. That should be by a panel of experts—and in our hands, that was how it was going to be—to decide what the eligibility criterion was. It does not seem right in this bill that we are deciding what the conditions are—the medical conditions that will be in and out of the bill.

Shane Le Brun from Medical Cannabis Awareness New Zealand has raised exactly this point. He makes the point that a condition needs to be progressive, or, if you’re advanced, or it is life-threatening, or if you’re near the end of your life—but you’re actually just stable at the moment. Let me just quote from one of the things he says: “Other conditions, … are not covered. Dravet Syndrome, which results in 10-20% of patients not making it to adulthood due to the severity of their condition for example. For those that do make it to adulthood, the condition is generally not progressive, and while the condition is debilitating it would be difficult to declare that such patients are nearing the end of [their] life.”

I would submit that we would probably all agree in those circumstances that someone with Dravet syndrome might well benefit from medicinal cannabis. Again, that’s a subject for specialists to decide, and it is not for us tonight to write Dravet syndrome into the bill. But, at first blush, it would seem to be a valid case for a trial of medicinal cannabis, and yet here we are, on nearly all of the criteria put forward for palliation—it’s a condition that’s not generally progressive, it is undoubtedly severe, and those patients are not nearing the end of their lives. They will miss out, as the bill is written here. I think, again, this talks to definitions and politicians deciding what those definitions are.

So the questions we have for the Minister are: where do we find greater clarification around what these four eligibility criteria are, how does he explain that, and why are he, as a politician, and his colleagues deciding which diseases are worthy of medicinal cannabis and which are not? Again, we offer—we had solutions, under our hands, where the offer was that we would have a panel of experts who would help us with this and who, hopefully, know more than we do about it, and, out of legislation, they would guide us towards what the most suitable use of medicinal cannabis would be. Just to clarify also what we’d actually be voting on, we’re looking to insert “cannabis for medicinal purposes” into this bill because we think it adds greater clarity.

I’ll just take the opportunity to respond to a few of the issues raised in the debate so far on this more substantive part of the bill. I note the changed references from “terminal illness” to “palliation” have been the predominant topic of discussion.

I want, first, to acknowledge New Zealand First and Jenny Marcroft for her excellent work in this area, bringing forward the suggestion of “palliation” to replace “terminal illness”, as you see in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 177 that is before the committee and is being discussed now. The reason for this is that it’s an internationally used term describing a condition, and, indeed, as Dr Reti hints, it is much better left in the hands of the specialists and the medical practitioners, who are able to decide who meets that definition of “palliation”. Palliative care, as he referred to briefly, is, of course, the action. It’s a treatment, as opposed to “palliation”, which is a condition—I’m sure Dr Reti knows that, but just for the clarity of the committee.

The Hon Michael Woodhouse managed to spend a good part of his contribution talking about SOP 179, and as I’ve said when he’s raised that in other clauses in the debate, I’ll deal with SOP 179 when we come to it in clause 8 of the bill. But the concern that he raised was that he saw an opportunity where his party could agree, if there was a sunset clause, to the palliation changes. The reason—as I explained when this was raised in previous clauses—for us preferring a more flexible regime, where the Minister of Health is accountable and conducts a review as to whether this need has expired because there are sufficient products on the market to supply legitimately scientifically proven cannabis products, is that that gives a degree of flexibility; it allows the experts to advise on it with the review, and it means that there’s no sunset clause, which would require the whole Parliament to gear up to address this issue. We think that, actually, specialists are, as Dr Reti said in another part of his contribution, the best people to advise on what the right choices around this are when there are sufficient products on the market.

So that’s our reason. We prefer the more flexible approach. We prefer to leave these decisions to specialists, rather than to politicians, about when we have sufficient products on the market rather than the need for illicit cannabis.

It’s a pleasure to take a brief call on this bill. I think, having observed the debate in the previous parts and the last, particularly, three contributions, it highlights to me why we’ve got in such a mess with this piece of legislation. On one hand, in the bill, it tries to define “terminal illness”, which means “an illness from which a person can reasonably be expected to die within 12 months”. Then we have what’s called the palliation clause, that’s been introduced as a way of narrowing this focus—sorry, broadening the focus, I suppose, in one sense, and narrowing it in another.

The reason this side of the House has difficulty is because this side of the House had proposed a regime under Dr Shane Reti that was a properly organised, managed, and regulated medicinal cannabis regime for pain relief, seizure control, and other such benefits, largely at the discretion of the health professionals, and some regulations. So we had set up a scheme that would benefit anybody that the medical profession thought would benefit from it. Now we’re getting caught up in whether it’s terminal or palliative, only because of this first part of the provision which seeks to give an exemption from prosecution for existing cannabis products.

And I think it’s a real shame that this House, where we have almost complete unanimity that the New Zealand public should have access to a medicinal cannabis scheme, is ending up debating whether it’s a terminal illness provision—what does terminal illness mean?—whether it’s a palliative-type provision, and what does that mean? There are people all over New Zealand waiting for this legislation to pass who aren’t in a palliative state, who aren’t actually even in a terminal state but who have a belief or an understanding or even documentation and guidance that medicinal cannabis will make a difference to their life and their condition.

So under clause 4, which is really where terminal illness is defined, and then the subsequent Supplementary Order Paper 177 from the Minister of Health, this House is getting all hung up on things that, in my view, to the New Zealand public don’t really matter. We are defining things down to a level which I don’t think is in agreement with what the New Zealand public expect. And if you look at the last contributions for the last half an hour, all we’re doing is trying to find a way of satisfying the Government, which wants to bring in a piece of legislation, and some genuine concern expressed by this side of the House around the definition of terminal illness.

I go back to the Hon Michael Woodhouse and what he said previously: on one hand, we’re trying to develop a set of regulations; we’re trying to develop a regime. And I’m glad the Minister has said that he supports expert independent advice on what would work. But, on the other hand, we are hell-bent on racing through a series of legislative changes that allow people to be exempt from prosecution for the use of existing cannabis-based products. In the meantime, this House, in my view, is getting caught up on definitions, which it shouldn’t be.

To the Minister: from where I sit, I ask you whether in fact before the passing and at the end of the committee stage of this bill, you could reconsider the fact that you are determined to focus on the definitions of terminal illness, palliative care, and the palliative state, and simply find a way with this side of the House that could make this work, because the Hon Michael Woodhouse and Mr Shane Reti have talked about a sunset clause which is specifically in there to allow a regulated and proper regime to be developed, so all we’re dealing with is what happens in the meantime until that can occur.

And, I think, for the people listening at home—a lady I spoke to this week who has got great expectations about this bill will be disappointed, as it’s currently written that she may not have access to medicinal cannabis. I think this House needs to do better than it is, and I ask the Minister to reconsider his position. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a very short call with regards to this bill and clause 4, which amends section 2 of the principal Act: “Interpretation” of cannabis and cannabidiol (CBD). I wanted to just very quickly go through the definitions for the benefit of listeners at home and for some of our Opposition members who haven’t read the bill, so that this may clarify the matter. So bear with me; I’m going to read a little bit from the bill itself.

The bill amends the interpretation and adds “non-psychoactive THC analogue” as a definition, and I thought to myself “What on earth does that mean?” I’m not a scientist, and I certainly am not a chemist.

💬 Matt Doocey: Google it.

I did google it, actually, Mr Matt Doocey, and found out that it’s a compound with a molecular structure that is closely similar to that of another. So there you go.

💬 Matt Doocey: Oh, you are a chemist!

Ha, ha! I am clever. So there are a lot of terms in here that make reference and scientific references: a tetrahydrocannabinol is referenced—of course, we know this as THC—and it talks specifically about a structure that it is substantially similar to, and it goes on and lists them, from paragraphs (i) to (iv), including esters, isomers, salts, and the THC. It is merely a clarification.

The important part, I believe, is when we come to new section 2A, in clause 4A, the “Meaning of CBD product”, and I acknowledge Dr Shane Reti in that there is no controversy about this. I just believe it’s important to talk to it to make sure that people are clear about what it is. So a CBD product is “a product that—(a) contains cannabidiol; and (b) either—(i) does not contain a specified substance;”—which I’ll come on to in a minute—“or (ii) contains specified substances … [of less] than 2% …”. So it’s not psychoactive, in other words. It also can’t have any other controlled drugs in there, and it can’t have any other psychoactive substance in there. That’s quite clear. So this is CBD; this is medicinal cannabis; this is under 2 percent of THC, which is psychoactive, OK? So that’s clear.

And then the other part in new section 2A(2) refers to a specified substance. Now, this is what we normally know as cannabis. So a specified substance, very simply, is what “(a) naturally occurs in cannabis; … is capable of inducing more than a minor psychoactive effect, by any means, in a person.” And then it goes into the scientific list. So, essentially, it is important, when we are looking through the entire bill, that we actually make sure we know which of those two substances we are talking about. I thought it was important to mention that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

If the speaker was being absolutely clear for people listening, then she was not speaking to the bill; she was speaking to Supplementary Order Paper 177.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to carry on from where my learned colleague from the Health Committee Angie Warren-Clark left off, because I think interpretations and definitions are, in fact, very important. When we introduce a bill and debate it in its first reading, we debate a lot about the intent, but, in fact, the real grunt of the bill is understanding whether the words in the draft bill will actually deliver the intent. That’s why I think, at this committee stage, we do need to explore the words we have.

Chlöe Swarbrick mentioned she did a quick google search for something she was researching: palliation. I wasn’t at the second reading. Palliation is something I’m new to, so I did google it myself. I was surprised, actually. When you look at definitions in the UK with palliation, you don’t have to be terminally ill to receive palliative care. Now, that’s on the NHS website. In fact, if we’re using the word “palliation” because we think it gives better clarity—and I’d like the Minister David Clark to respond to this—maybe it doesn’t. Maybe, in fact, 12 months was actually a more definitive amount, because when you look at the definition in new section 2(1B), inserted by clause 4(3), which says “an advanced progressive life-limiting condition”—well, you can think of degenerative diseases for that, and conditions.

“Nearing the end of life”—what is the definition of “nearing the end of your life”? Well, I could be flippant and say that every day I’m alive I’m nearing the end of my life. With respect, I know where we’re heading about someone who is terminally ill, but I do think we need to be very clear here, because people will act on this bill, such as the New Zealand Police force. So we’re introducing a defence under clause 4 with interpretation around the use of “palliation”. I think we just need to be very clear that we haven’t succumbed to jumping into a buzz word. If you don’t really know what “palliation” means, you keep quiet, because you think people are smarter and they have heard it first, but is it actually more definitive than using the 12 months? I think we need to be very careful about that definition, as well, to understand, in fact, whether that will be able to be used by people who would need to enact this piece of legislation. We’ve heard many a time this bill has been called legislative laziness.

I’ve got a question for the Minister: why do we need cannabidiol (CBD) in this bill? What difference is it from what the last Government did about improving access to CBD? I mean, where I want to start that with—I must say I was quite touched by the submissions. Going into it, I was a bit cynical. I thought it was going to be a lot of fringe sort of people, really, with wacky ideas, and I was genuinely moved by very normal, hard-working Kiwi families who were put in a very difficult position because they were finding it very hard to access products like medicinal cannabis that could make a real difference.

We heard stories of one family with a young kid and the cost and the money they were paying for Sativex through the pharmacy. So I want to give this due justice. I don’t want to spook some of my own colleagues, but it even seems with CBD that maybe it should just be down at the pharmacy—you get your creams and your oils and you rub it on. You’re always going to have that difference between the perceived benefit and the evidence of it, but in my understanding a lot of work around CBD has already been done on this. So I’d just be very curious what this bill does that wasn’t already in law and regulation as well.

So just the two questions there to the Minister around the difference of this bill versus CBD availability existing, and is “palliation” a clearer definition than just saying “within 12 months” for someone who’s terminally ill?

Madam Chair, thank you. I will respond to the issues that have come up in the debate, albeit some of them are repeating something that we had before.

The issue around cannabidiol (CBD) that Mr Doocey just raised—what is being done with CBD that wasn’t already the case? That question was answered by the Hon Michael Woodhouse in his opening contribution. This codifies in law what was already the practice in terms of regulation. The Hon Michael Woodhouse was correct in putting that forward and, indeed, said that that was one of the reasons—one of the things that would be easy for his party to support.

The other issue that the member Matt Doocey raised was around palliation. The term was discussed, also, by Angie Warren-Clark, and whether it provided better clarity. He read out the definition “an advanced … life-limiting [degenerative] condition … nearing the end of … life”. Indeed, as has been covered in the debate, it is better for doctors to make those judgments. I think Shane Reti raised that in his contribution. I’ve covered Dr Reti’s contributions earlier and the Hon Michael Woodhouse’s but as these issues have come up again I’m just, for the benefit of the committee, sharing that wisdom that’s already been shared by his colleagues.

The member Lawrence Yule raised the issue of Dr Reti’s scheme and regulation. He didn’t actually speak to the clause in the bill so I’ll address the issues that he raised when we get to that clause.

I’d just make the point for the Minister that it is the judgment of the Chair as to whether someone is speaking to the clause in the bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a call, on behalf of New Zealand First, in this committee stage. I would like to begin my contribution by just acknowledging the Minister in the chair, the Hon Dr David Clark, and the diligent way he has addressed all the points that’ve been raised—those by the good doctor Shane Reti, as well as the Hon Michael Woodhouse and then, more recently, Mr Matt Doocey. Thank you for making those points of clarification for us. I also note that those questions have now been becoming a little repetitive.

I would just like to add, in my contribution, palliation. It’s a point that Mr Matt Doocey mentioned—about the word. Really, unless you’ve been in the medical profession, it is not really a word you come across unless, of course, you have had a situation with family or friends, where palliation becomes a giant word for you because it’s all about that person and the fact that they have a terminal illness and they will be dying at some point, usually not in the very distant future at all. So palliation is a loaded word. It’s an emotive word because of what is attached to it.

I’m really pleased, and I thank the Minister for working very collaboratively with New Zealand First in expanding from terminal illness and the 12-month period into palliation, and what that means in terms of broadening out the ability for and expanding beyond just patients who are terminally ill. We expect that around 25,000—that was the figure in 2016—were classified as being in palliation.

Thank you to the Minister, and also to the Green Party, for working collaboratively. This is a coalition Government working collectively well together on this very important bill. So that’s my contribution. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I move, That the question be now put.

The question is—[Interruption] OK, so I understand I didn’t need the motion. If no one’s taking the call, I can move straight to the questions on clause 4. So I will do that. The question is—

Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The motion was put, and so it should be voted on.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You want me to put it? OK. We do have a motion on the floor. The Opposition are asking that that motion be put. So I will put the motion that the question be now put.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Would you be kind enough just to recheck how you read out that motion in case you identified my Supplementary Order Paper as No. 177; in fact, it’s 178.

No, no—I read it out as the amendment to clause 4 in Supplementary Order Paper 177 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 178 be agreed to, and I did check that, because at first it didn’t make sense, but I did check it.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 177 in the name of the Hon Dr David Clark to clause 4 be agreed to.