Wednesday, 5 December 2018

WEDNESDAY, 5 DECEMBER 2018

WEDNESDAY, 5 DECEMBER 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Motions

Influenza Pandemic of 1918—Centenary

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Following a discussion between the Leader of the House and shadow Leader of the House, I seek leave to move Government notice of motion No. 5 on the centenary of the influenza epidemic of 1918.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I move, That this House acknowledge that 100 years ago, in late 1918, New Zealand was in the grip of this country’s worst public health disaster, the influenza pandemic, which killed around 9,000 New Zealanders and had a devastating effect on our Pacific neighbours, and remember the selfless service of the many volunteers and health professionals who risked their own lives to care for their communities.

The 1918 influenza pandemic was the worst public health emergency this country has ever experienced. The majority of the 9,000 deaths occurred between October and December. No other event in New Zealand has killed as many in such a short time. Within a few months, half as many New Zealanders lost their lives as were killed during the whole four years of the First World War. Unlike most influenza strains, which usually have the greatest impact on the very young and the elderly, this one targeted healthy young adults in the prime of their lives, including returning servicemen and women, who had survived the horrors of war. Children were left without parents. Māori were particularly affected, with a death rate seven times that of Pākehā. The scale of the pandemic overwhelmed hospitals and health services at a time when many doctors and nurses were still overseas serving. Those who remained worked tirelessly, as did large numbers of volunteers, without whose efforts there would have been greater loss of life. Sadly, some also succumbed to the flu in the course of their service.

We acknowledge, too, the impact that influenza had in the wider Pacific and particularly in Samoa, where it was disastrous. In 1918, New Zealand authorities allowed the ship Talune, carrying passengers with influenza, to disembark in Apia—22 percent of the Samoan population died from the effects of this flu. In 2002, Prime Minister Helen Clark offered a formal apology on behalf of the New Zealand Government to the people of Samoa for this tragic event.

As we remember all those who died in 1918, we also note that the pandemic did, in some ways, leave a positive legacy. The experiences of the disaster helped to inform our approaches to managing infectious diseases, preventing recurrences and developing our response capabilities. The Health Act passed by this House in 1920 was to shape New Zealand’s public health system for the next 40 years.

The risk of another influenza pandemic remains high 100 years on from this event. A similarly aggressive infection now would, we estimate, kill up to 38,000 New Zealanders. New strains of flu regularly reach our shores. The centenary of this tragic time in our history reminds us of the need to be prepared to cope with future communicable disease pandemics. It reminds us that, in bad times, it is our connection with each other that gives us the best chance of making it through such a pandemic. Let’s ensure our families, workplaces, and communities are strong and resilient so that we are well placed to look after each other.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): In a small part of the small town of Waimate in the South Island, there’s a very large statue. It’s a memorial to the town’s GP, Dr Margaret Cruickshank, erected in 1923. At that time, it was the only statue in New Zealand memorialising a woman other than Queen Victoria. She was just the second woman to graduate in medicine at the University of Otago and the first to be a general practitioner.

When the influenza epidemic broke out in 1918, it was the contextual perfect storm: a lot of movement of people around the country, mass celebrations at the end of the Great War, and a large proportion of New Zealand’s health workforce still deployed to the war or on their way home from it.

Health professionals like Dr Cruickshank, already tired and overworked, redoubled their efforts to care for the sick. According to a recent Otago Daily Times article, when her driver fell ill, she completed her rounds by bike or by horse and cart. When, as she often did, she found the patient’s farm or household chores undone due to illness, she would often do the work herself. Like all of the health professionals, Dr Cruickshank was herself at risk, and the punishing workload made that risk greater. Eventually, she succumbed to influenza and was one of 10 doctors and a plethora of other health professionals to die of the disease.

The toll globally was enormous and so too in New Zealand, as the Minister mentioned: the 9,000 deaths in just four months is a half of all of the deaths of the four years of the Great War. Māori were particularly badly hit, with that death rate more than seven times the revised European death rate, and for many iwi, the 1918 flu is sometimes used as a date marker: things that happened “before” or “after” the great flu or “around the time of it”.

Supporting health professionals were thousands of volunteers, a largely female army of relief workers performing sometimes unsavoury tasks that they wouldn’t have dreamed of undertaking a month earlier. They did so bravely and in the face of the risk that they too might succumb. The epidemic passed relatively quickly but left a massive scar on a country already traumatised by the war.

Many lessons of prevention and treatment were learned, primarily around the importance of surveillance. I trust that, with the passage of time, complacency hasn’t set in around surveilling lower virulent strains like meningococcal disease. When another strain of influenza strikes—and experts are convinced that it is just a matter of time—we need to be ready to recognise and respond to that very quickly. But, in the meantime, we remember those who succumbed to the outbreak 100 years ago, their families, the volunteers, and, in particular, the many brave health professionals like Dr Cruickshank who did so selflessly in caring for the sick and dying.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): The 1918 Spanish influenza pandemic was the worst flu pandemic in recorded history. It’s reckoned that about 40 percent of the world’s population was infected and 20 million to 40 million people died from it. It was an influenza pandemic that swept around the globe with unparalleled ferocity, and New Zealand was not immune. In just two months, 9,000 people died here. Imagine the effect of such a sudden loss of life if that were to happen today. In comparison, over the four-year course of the Great War, 18,000 New Zealand soldiers died. Ironically, it was the returning soldiers who, it’s thought, brought the flu to New Zealand.

The flu pandemic moved very, very quickly, but it was the secondary condition—pneumonia—which was the real killer. Sufferers who also caught pneumonia would often turn black before they died because of the broken blood vessels. One woman described her suffering: her fingers and toenails turned black, her tongue was covered in half-an-inch - thick fungus, and her entire body was racked with pain.

Men were twice as likely as women to die, and the Māori death rate was seven times that of the general population. My grandmother was living in Hokianga. A soup kitchen there was organised in each of the communities. Mounted and armed guards also stood at crossroads to turn back any would-be visitors. There was one rule; it was simple: anyone could leave but no one could enter.

Whina Cooper, my grandmother’s whanaunga from Panguru in Hokianga, recalls her memories. Her father was the first to get sick in her area. He was really, really sick. He died. He was put in a coffin; others were put on sledges. Some they had to drag away. They dragged them away to the cemetery—to the urupā. There was no time for any tangi. It was devastating for Māori, as it was devastating for the rest of the population.

A hundred years on, and just a couple of weeks ago—there is a seaside cemetery in Taranaki where people lying forgotten have been remembered: the Waitapu Urupā near Ngāmotu Beach in New Plymouth. There was a ceremony held there recently by the chairman of Ngāti Te Whiti hapū, also a trustee of the urupā, Trenton Martin. They had karakia, and he called out to those who had passed to let them know that we were there for this occasion to let their spirits—their souls—be at peace now and that we have acknowledged them.

Flu pandemics have not been eradicated. They are not ancient history. They are ever present in our modern, connected world, and they are likely to spread even faster. We must remember the tragic events of 100 years ago and never be the slightest bit complacent in defending ourselves from any potential pandemic.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. As we look around this Chamber, we can see the war memorials from the First World War, which was announced when this Chamber was opened. And while there are no memorials for the victims of the Spanish flu in New Zealand, which killed a half as many people in only two months as died in the entirety of the First World War—while there is no plaque—it is important that we as members of Parliament remember them, and that’s why the Green Party is happy and proud and privileged to support the Government motion.

The Spanish flu cut a swath through New Zealand and, coming on the back of World War I, had a fundamental impact on our growing, new society. The impacts were particularly felt on Māori, who had a death rate seven times higher than Pākehā. Whina Cooper recalled in a quote, “Everyone was sick, no one to help, they were dying one after the other. My father was very, very sick then. He was the first to die. I couldn’t do anything for him. I remember we put him in a coffin, like a box. There were many others, you could see them on the roads on sledges, the ones that are able to drag them away, dragged them away to the cemetery. No time for tangis.”

As it spread around the world, it had a huge impact, particularly on our Pacific neighbours. In Western Samoa, which wasn’t quarantined like American Samoa, it had a 22 percent death rate, and I’m glad that this country formally acknowledged that with an apology in the early 2000s.

The impacts were felt in every family in Aotearoa New Zealand but also in our laws, and the response to the flu led to the modernisation of the Health Act 1920. So, as we remember the victims today, we must also remind ourselves to prepare for future pandemics so that every New Zealander can have the best they can.

Motion agreed to.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the Treasury’s Living Standards Framework?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Treasury has this week released the first version of its Living Standards Framework, Dashboard. The Dashboard is a tool created by Treasury within its broader Living Standards Framework to help shape policy and policy advice. The data in it shows the current and future well-being of New Zealanders broken down by ethnicity, age, gender, region, family type, and area deprivation over time. It also shows the distribution of New Zealanders having high, medium, or low well-being for each domain. Current well-being is reflected via indicators across 12 areas such as health, housing, safety, and social connection, while information on future well-being is shown through data on the Living Standards Framework’s four capitals or focus areas: natural, human, social, and financial and physical capital.

Willow-Jean Prime: What reports has he seen about how the Living Standards Framework and Dashboard will evolve?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As Treasury itself says, the Living Standards Framework and Dashboard are a positive early milestone amid a long-term work in progress. There are issues and information gaps that need to be addressed including how to better embed Māori and Pacific people’s perspectives, child well-being indicators, and cultural well-being. In the case of the well-being of children and young people, we do need to improve data collection to ensure that the Dashboard can properly reflect the well-being of our young people. Treasury has said it will keep developing and updating the Dashboard, and it’s important they do this so that the Living Standards Framework and Dashboard truly represent New Zealand.

Willow-Jean Prime: How is the Living Standards Framework contributing to the Government’s 2019 well-being Budget?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The Living Standards Framework and Dashboard are an important input into the 2019 well-being Budget. This advice, along with that from other sources, including sector experts, is helping inform Government decisions on Budget choices and the way we measure the outcomes of our policies. It’s important to note that we are using this information not just to track and measure our success but also to inform our priorities for the well-being Budget. These priorities will be announced as part of the Budget Policy Statement next week, and they will focus on the long-term intergenerational outcomes that will improve all New Zealanders’ well-being.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Simon Bridges: Why did she assert last week that Mr Sroubek’s estranged wife, quote, “changed her tune”, and that she is, quote, “the National Party’s informant”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I assume the member is referring to responses made on my behalf. To answer the question, the Deputy Prime Minister, at the time, was making reference to information that I believe at that time was already raised in the public domain. Certainly, the first I knew of that information was when it was raised with me by the media.

Hon Simon Bridges: What does she say to the claim by Mr Sroubek’s estranged wife and family that her Government’s statements have been beyond appalling, and have caused immense stress and feelings of utter hopelessness in the estranged wife?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Again, the first I knew of some of those issues was when they were raised with me by the media, and I have seen some reports since then. My expectation would be that if we had information brought to us that raised concerns around her safety, we act appropriately on that. When that issue was first raised with me, I told the Minister directly about that issue, and I understood he followed that up. My understanding is that is what has happened in each case that concerns have been raised with us directly.

Hon Simon Bridges: Can we be clear that she’s rightly distancing herself from statements made on her behalf that this woman was the National Party’s informant?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: What I’m pointing out is that—

Hon Simon Bridges: Oh, so you’re not?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —my first knowledge of some of these issues was when they were already brought into the public domain, and that whenever we’ve had issues—

Hon Simon Bridges: What’s that got to do with anything? Do you stand by the statements or not?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —of concern raised, we acted appropriately—

SPEAKER: I don’t know how many times I have to tell the Leader of the Opposition: when he interjects, he is not to do it in the second person.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she think that tarnishing a victim’s reputation by inferring they were politically motivated, and pushing her to feel utterly hopeless, aligns with her kinder, more compassionate style of Government?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The first time I heard any such connection was actually in a media report—I think, my recollection is, on Radio New Zealand. That was the first time I heard that statement. I’d have to say, if there’s genuine concern about protecting that individual’s privacy, we would not be having this question in the House right now.

Hon Simon Bridges: How did Immigration New Zealand get the home address of Mr Sroubek’s estranged wife, given there was a police safety plan in place—facts known only to the police?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I obviously have absolutely no involvement with Immigration New Zealand’s following up on issues or concerns or, indeed, interviews or questioning. It wouldn’t be appropriate for me to have that knowledge or that level of involvement.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she agree with her police Minister on this, who did have a view, that, quote, “There are some people who just need to be kept safe, and there is no way that anyone apart from police should know where that is.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I think there’s appropriateness to the statements the police Minister was making. In fact, my understanding is that when he’s been informed of issues, he’s dealt with that entirely appropriately.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is it OK that two police detectives and Immigration New Zealand turned up at the estranged wife’s home address, unannounced, to obtain a changed statement from her, leaving her feeling “extremely vulnerable, exposed, and under threat.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, I wouldn’t have knowledge of some of the level of detail that the Leader of the Opposition is raising. My advice would be that if these are issues that have indeed occurred, it would be appropriate, I think, for the Minister of Police to put them to the police and have them follow up independently of him. It is an operational issue; it is appropriate for them to respond. There’s also an independent police complaints process if there has been anything that’s occurred that has been questionable or should be followed up on.

Hon Simon Bridges: Will she answer whether it’s OK that two police detectives and Immigration New Zealand turned up at the estranged woman’s home address, unannounced, to obtain a changed statement from her, leaving her feeling “extremely vulnerable, exposed, and under threat.”?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I’ve said, I simply cannot know exactly what’s happened in this scenario. What I am laying out are all of the appropriate channels that are available for the member to ensure that this is looked into appropriately, because that is not something I will have detail on. I also want to point out that if this individual is feeling vulnerable, they should be supported, and canvassing these issues openly, here in this House, I don’t think is one way of doing that.

Hon Simon Bridges: Has the system let down the estranged wife of Sroubek?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I would have to be intimately involved in every level of detail in order to know that. What we do need to make sure is that if there are complaints there that need to be made, they are followed up on appropriately, and I’m sure Ministers will ensure that that is the case if the member brings those complaints directly to them.

Hon Simon Bridges: When will the Opposition get the representations made to the Government on Sroubek’s behalf?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: Obviously, this is a case that is still potentially subject to legal challenge. The Minister of Immigration has put out the information that is available at this point, but at the same time there is a process still to be gone through.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she know personally any of the people who have made these representations?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I am not privy to the representations in the case that have been made, and nor would it be appropriate for me to be privy to the representations or the process that immigration independently conducts in these situations.

Hon Simon Bridges: When will career criminal Karel Sroubek leave this country?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: When this process is complete. Obviously, the Minister of Immigration has made public his decision.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she anticipate it will now take years, given the court case that will ensue?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I am not going to answer a hypothetical on this case. The Minister has issued his decision; now there’s a process to be run.

Hon Simon Bridges: Has she entirely washed her hands of anything to do with the Sroubek fiasco, and is she ducking and diving to get out of its way? [Speaker stands] Oh, here comes the protection.

SPEAKER: No—the Leader of the Opposition will leave the House.

Hon Simon Bridges withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Struck a raw nerve.

SPEAKER: He will be followed by the shadow Leader of the House.

Hon Gerry Brownlee withdrew from the Chamber.

Question No. 3—Regional Economic Development

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Regional Economic Development. How many jobs have been created by the Provincial Growth Fund so far?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): Both directly and indirectly, we have had, as a consequence of the Provincial Growth Fund, 4,000 jobs created—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! [Interruption] Order! Right, we’ll start again. I will ask Government members to watch what is happening and not comment on it. Thank you.

3. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister for Regional Economic Development: How many jobs have been created by the Provincial Growth Fund so far?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Regional Economic Development): As a consequence of the Provincial Growth Fund, both directly and indirectly, about 4,000 jobs have been created. With the acquiescence of the South, 690 associated with investment in rail; over 1,200 jobs over the next five-year construction pipeline phase, as a consequence of roading investments; the Ruapehu gondola—150 jobs directly. I could go on, but it’s on the website.

Mark Patterson: What recent announcements have been made regarding the Provincial Growth Fund?

Hon SHANE JONES: On the question of connectivity, a sum of over $30 million to improve ultra-fast broadband and mobile networks. In terms of tourism, the Punakaiki redevelopment—incredibly important for areas around the Dolomite Point visitor experience—dolomite; not very far from the word dynamite—and a host of others, all up on the website.

Mark Patterson: What economic benefits will be realised from these investments?

Hon SHANE JONES: The Government has a very strong focus on identifying within the regions opportunity to endow the regions with greater infrastructure, thus improving productivity and attracting secondary and tertiary investment. It is actually focusing on those areas where pockets of our population have been intransigent, in the sense of either gearing themselves up to come into the world of work or finding the right opportunity. All of these are contributing, at long last, to practical, positive developments within provincial New Zealand.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he consider that all taxpayer money is being spent wisely?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I certainly hope the member’s not asking me to pass judgment on the spending habits of all taxpayers, although my own purchase of jet planes is possibly not wise spending. But, of course, it is, to answer the member’s question, this Government’s approach that expenditure is undertaken wisely. Ensuring that that happens is an ongoing process. For example, where we have seen areas of expenditure that we do not think wise, we have reprioritised them, as we did through Budget 2018. That exercise in reprioritisation is ongoing.

Hon Amy Adams: Is a $2.8 billion spend on a first-year - free tertiary programme that has delivered fewer students good value for money?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The fees-free programme is an excellent investment in making sure that all New Zealanders get access to post - secondary school education and training, wherever they come from. It’s a critical part of making sure that we are preparing for the future of work and ensuring that people who have never undertaken post - secondary school education or training, whatever age they are, have access.

Hon Amy Adams: If that policy is removing barriers for students accessing tertiary education, why are fewer of them now accessing tertiary education than previously?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: It is removing barriers, and we hear on a regular basis from people around New Zealand who tell us about communities where there are people who wouldn’t have considered going on to tertiary education until they were able to access it in this way.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he accept that that $2.8 billion fees-free tertiary programme is regressive?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Minister of Finance confirm that much of the cost of that programme is money the Government would have to outlay anyway through the student loan scheme had fees not been abolished?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely. I can confirm that, and I can also confirm the statement made in the House by the Minister of Education last week, I think, which of course indicates the large amount of money we don’t get back from the student loan scheme. This is, in fact, a very good investment.

Hon Amy Adams: Given that the Minister denies that the policy is regressive, does he not understand that it primarily benefits people from higher-income families and those who will earn higher incomes over their lifetime?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don’t believe it’s regressive, because I want to see every New Zealander—whether or not they’re from a rich background or a poor background, whether or not they’re the son or daughter of a truck driver, or whether they’re already in work and want to retrain—having that opportunity.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Minister of Finance confirm that those with higher levels of qualifications do earn more money throughout their working life and, therefore, pay more tax?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, indeed I can confirm that. What we want is all New Zealanders earning higher wages. One of the critical ways of getting there is for them to get more training, more skills, and more qualifications.

Hon Amy Adams: Given the Minister’s answer to Mr Hipkins’ question, how much additional money has the Government booked for the fees-free policy over and above any savings from student loans?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don’t have the detail of that information with me today. I’m sure that if a question goes down to the Minister of Education, he will be able to answer that.

Question No. 5—Education

5. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What recent reports has he seen on the financial sustainability of institutes of technology and polytechnics?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I have recently seen a report by the Auditor-General, who said that financial sustainability is the most significant challenge facing many of our tertiary education institutions, but particularly the institutes of technology and polytechnics. The Auditor-General found that ITPs—institutes of technology, and polytechs—have been relying on increases in revenue from international students to offset their operating costs and to fund new facilities and that that has made them overly dependent on international education, and as domestic enrolments have fallen, it’s meant that their financial model is no longer sustainable and they have no longer been able to cover their expenses.

Marja Lubeck: What other issues did the Auditor-General identify amongst the institutes of technology and polytechnics?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Auditor-General also identified a lack of coordinated thinking behind polytechnics’ investment decisions, with many developing their own course content despite similar courses already being on offer elsewhere. The Auditor-General found that polytechs had been over-optimistic in their roll projections—that they’d failed to reduce costs to match falling revenues. The Tertiary Education Commission forecasts that most institutes of technology and polytechs will be in deficit by 2020.

Marja Lubeck: What action has the Government already taken to secure the viability of our institutes of technology and polytechnics?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: After a year in Government, we have already had to intervene to prop up four of our existing polytechs. There are only 16 of them. We have announced an across-the-board funding rate increase for all tertiary education providers and we’ve also scrapped the previous Government’s ideologically driven competitive funding model, which even the private providers hated.

SPEAKER: Question No. 6—the Hon Judith Collins.

Marja Lubeck: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: Oh, sorry. I’ve called it. The member didn’t stand up quickly enough.

Question No. 6—Housing and Urban Development

6. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: How many of the 10 KiwiBuild houses in Wānaka and the 10 KiwiBuild houses in Te Kauwhata have had an agreement for sale and purchase become unconditional?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Te Kauwhata and Wānaka homes are not built yet. The Wānaka homes will be completed between Christmas and March 2019. Te Kauwhata homes are expected to be completed in 2020. I’m advised that four sale and purchase agreements so far have become unconditional, but settlement is still conditional on the homes being completed and receiving code of compliance.

Hon Judith Collins: Is there any doubt that the homes will then be completed and receive a code of compliance certificate?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: No.

Hon Judith Collins: What is the total value of the KiwiBuild underwrite across both the Wānaka and Te Kauwhata KiwiBuild developments?

Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I don’t have that number to hand, but I’m happy to get it for the member.

Question No. 7—Foreign Affairs

7. Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does the Government remain committed to an independent foreign policy?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Yes, most certainly. When compared to the last Government, we intend to restore the word “in” to an independent foreign policy.

Hon Todd McClay: Will New Zealand sign the United Nations Global Compact for Migration in Morocco next week?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Despite the leader of the party member over there saying that the Government had already done that in the first paragraph of his press statement, that is not the case. He is mistaken, and the Government is still working on it.

Hon Todd McClay: Why, given the Government was being briefed on the UN negotiations as far back as March, has it not reached a decision just five days before the agreement is to be signed?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because the briefing in March was to the officials who were going to be part of the negotiations in the months thereafter. That briefing was not for the Government; it was for the officials.

Hon Todd McClay: Is he aware that this UN agreement will affect New Zealand’s sovereignty and limit the independent nature of our migration and foreign policies, and for this reason the Government should not be signing us up to it next week in Morocco?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The member would be wise to actually read the compact.

Hon Todd McClay: I’ve read it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, it says clearly that the compact explicitly reaffirms national sovereignty and recognises the ability for Governments to set their own migration policies. Then it goes on to say that it’s not legally binding. So that member would be wise to get a lawyer to interpret it for him, because it’s clear as daylight in the document.

Question No. 8—Health

8. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Is the Government making primary healthcare more affordable for families; if so, how?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): On 1 December, 56,000 13-year-olds became eligible for free primary care. That means that all children aged under 14 are now entitled to free doctors visits. This delivers on the coalition agreement between Labour and New Zealand First. I want to thank New Zealand First for their advocacy and acknowledge their proud record on this issue going back to the 1990s and the initial introduction of free visits for children. This coalition Government is committed to making our country the best place in the world to be a child. Extending free primary care to every child under 14 is a big step towards that goal.

Jenny Marcroft: What are the benefits of extending free doctors visits to 13-year-olds?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: By extending the eligibility for free primary care to a further 56,000 13-year-olds, we’re making quality healthcare more accessible for children in New Zealand. This will ensure that all children under 14, regardless of living situation, will be able to live healthier lives throughout critical years of their development. I’m confident that we will see the long-term benefits from making sure children have access to a doctor whenever they need it, and the flow-on effects of this early intervention will go on for years to come.

Angie Warren-Clark: What other recent changes have been made to make primary healthcare more affordable?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: More good news. As of 1 December, hundreds of thousands of community service card holders saw the cost of visiting the doctor fall by an average of $20 to $30. That includes about 80,000 people who are newly eligible for a community services card because they received an accommodation supplement or an income-related rent subsidy.

Angie Warren-Clark: Why is improving access to primary healthcare important?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: We know that last year nearly 600,000 people didn’t go to a GP for reasons of cost. In a country like New Zealand, costs should not put people off going to see the doctor when they’re sick. Not only will cheaper doctors visits mean more people will be able to afford to get the care they need, that will mean many health issues can be identified and treated early, before they become major problems requiring hospital treatment.

Question No. 9—Immigration

9. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all the Government’s statements and actions on the immigration case involving Karel Sroubek?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Yes, in their context and given the information and advice that was available at the time.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Who advised Immigration New Zealand of the whereabouts of Karel Sroubek’s estranged wife when this information was known only to New Zealand Police?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: That’s an operational matter for Immigration New Zealand.

Hon Mark Mitchell: What was the purpose of two New Zealand police detectives accompanying an immigration official to the location of Sroubek’s estranged wife?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: That’s an operational matter for the New Zealand Police.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why did the New Zealand Police and Immigration New Zealand both apologise and New Zealand Police say that they would not accompany an immigration official—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’m going to give the member a chance to rephrase the beginning of the question and make sure that it is within this Minister’s responsibility and that he’s not asking this Minister to answer for police operational matters, as has been made clear he can’t.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Why did Immigration New Zealand and New Zealand Police both apologise—

SPEAKER: Order! All the member has to do to stay within order is take the police out of it, and then he’s got the stuff that this Minister’s responsible for.

Hon Mark Mitchell: Why did Immigration New Zealand apologise to the estranged wife of Mr Sroubek and state that they would not approach that situation like that again?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I cannot speak to the veracity of the second part of the member’s statement, but, in answer to the first part of his statement, Immigration New Zealand apologised for any distress caused. But I will say to the member that I have sought assurances from Immigration New Zealand that they followed standard procedures. They have assured me that is the case.

Question No. 10—Education

10. Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: Does the Government plan to make new offers to try and prevent strikes in primary and secondary schools prior to the start of the 2019 school year?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The Government, through the Ministry of Education, is ready and willing to come back to the negotiating table as soon as possible. We’ve been very clear all along that we are happy to reconfigure the offer to better address teachers’ concerns within the $1.2 billion envelope that is now on the table.

Hon Nikki Kaye: Does he agree with the ministry using their resources for a Facebook video campaign talking up the offer that has generated parody videos and that teachers have called insulting, crass, and propaganda?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Ministry of Education have an absolutely legitimate role in explaining the offer.

Hon Nikki Kaye: What does he say to Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) president Jack Boyle, who described the Government’s previous offer to secondary teachers as last-minute, half-hearted, and almost a failure of their moral responsibility?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If our offer is a failure of moral responsibility, the member might want to consider where she’s been for the last 10 years, because the offer that we have made to the PPTA is a 9.3 percent increase on the existing rates, plus an additional top step of the new salary scale, which adds up to an increase of about 12.6 percent, which is almost as much as all of the percentage increases put together under the previous Government.

Jo Luxton: What are the pay increases currently on offer as part of the negotiations?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The $698 million offer to primary school teachers, which I note the Employment Relations Authority described as handsome and competitive, would see most primary school teachers receiving an increase of between $9,500 and $11,000. The latest $496 million offer to the secondary school teachers would see most secondary school teachers receive an increase of just under $10,000.

Hon Nikki Kaye: When will he take responsibility for what are being called mega strikes in 2019, and does he stand by the statement “There is no more money” when in November alone this Government announced $900 million in spending initiatives?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: $217 million of the spending initiatives I assume the member is referring to were directly related to the teachers’ claim, in the sense that they were dealing with the role of learning support coordinators, which is something that the teachers have been requesting through these negotiations. In terms of accepting responsibility, I fully accept responsibility for the fact that we have made teachers the biggest pay increase offer they have received in over a decade. I also fully accept responsibility for the fact that it is going to take some time to deal with the decade of neglect our education system has experienced.

Question No. 11—Health

11. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Health: Why did he say of the final report from the Government’s $6.5 million mental health inquiry that “I guess, doesn’t contain too many surprises”?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I think all members of this House will have heard stories from people with lived experience of mental health and addiction issues, and will know that we face huge challenges in this area; that is no surprise. It is one thing to know we need to change, and it’s another thing to know what that change will look like. The inquiry panel heard from thousands of New Zealanders and has produced a considered report containing 40 recommendations. It is already shaping, and will shape, our response to mental health and addiction for years to come.

Matt Doocey: What does he say to Shaun Robinson, Chief Executive of the Mental Health Foundation, who said, “The government have been waiting for the inquiry, and the inquiry has instructed them to stop delaying and get going. There is no further justification for delay,”?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This Government has not had any delay. We invested $200 million into the mental health and addiction ring-fence for district health boards in our first Budget. We launched the mental health and addiction inquiry in our first 100 days. We’ve introduced the Mana Ake programme in Kaikōura and Canterbury to get mental health workers on the ground in primary schools and in intermediate schools. We’ve introduced nurses in schools for decile 4, which we’re rolling out across New Zealand. And, on Saturday, we introduced community service card discounts that will be, on average, $20 to $30 per person across the country for over 500,000 New Zealanders, which is the way into mental health services through primary care for most people, and we think that that will make it more accessible. On top of that, we will be making announcements shortly around the talking therapies pilot announced in the Budget for 18- to 25-year-olds, an initiative sparked by recommendations from the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand. We are getting on with a number of things in the meantime because the evidence is there, and we will continue to get on with it. We will respond urgently and carefully—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! That’s enough, thank you.

Matt Doocey: Can he commit, with almost $3 billion prioritised for a failed tertiary fees-free policy, that his Government will ensure there is enough funding to adequately respond to what the public expects from the mental health inquiry?

SPEAKER: I’m going to give the member one more chance to get that question in order.

Matt Doocey: Can he commit that there is enough funding to adequately respond to what the public expects from the findings of the mental health inquiry?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This Government has been really clear already that one of the key priorities in the upcoming Budget is mental health and well-being. This Government is committed to responding meaningfully and significantly to this report; however, I will note that many of the issues that we are facing have built up over years: workforce issues, senior nurses around the country are in short supply. We have inherited underfunding in our health system, which will make response challenging. We’re committed to dealing with the issues we’ve inherited, but I think the member will understand that his Government has set us in a difficult starting place.

Matt Doocey: Given the mental health inquiry report recommending establishing a cross-party group in Parliament, will he accept my invitation to join a cross-party group on mental health, which he previously rejected?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I will note that Mike Houlahan had an excellent piece in the Otago Daily Times today about the concern about this inquiry being turned into a political football. I share his concerns, but I do look forward to all parties in this House playing a constructive role as we respond to this inquiry. In the first instance, the Health Committee is the most appropriate vehicle for cross-party discussions, and I understand the committee will receive a briefing on this very report later this month.

Question No. 12—State Owned Enterprises

12. Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National) to the Associate Minister for State Owned Enterprises: On what date did Landcorp send its submission to the Tax Working Group and was it invited to do so by the Tax Working Group or one of its members?

Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister for State Owned Enterprises): I’m advised Landcorp sent its submission to the Tax Working Group on 31 May 2018. I’m also advised it was not invited to do so. It responded to the Tax Working Group’s public requests for submissions.

Rt Hon David Carter: Did anyone in Government ask Landcorp to make this late submission to the Tax Working Group?

Hon SHANE JONES: Mr Speaker, with your forbearance I’m to going read out the answer. On 1 November, the acting Pāmu financial controller, the head of environment, and Mr Peter Fraser attended an agri-sector stakeholder meeting hosted by Treasury to discuss environmental taxes feedback from the Tax Working Group.

Rt Hon David Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, no, I can—I think the member might be able to express it better than I can, but I know where he’s heading.

Rt Hon David Carter: Well, my question hasn’t been answered.

SPEAKER: Maybe the member could repeat it just so it’s clear.

Rt Hon David Carter: Did anyone in the Government ask Landcorp to make a late submission to the Tax Working Group?

Hon SHANE JONES: I have described a meeting, which is publicly declared, between, arguably, the most senior of the Government departments, Treasury. At that meeting were members of the Landcorp team. At that meeting matters were discussed pertaining to environmental taxes for the Tax Working Group. I am not advised that a politician had invited them to do so.

SPEAKER: And there’s just one further thing so the question is answered, and that was were they invited to make a late submission, which is the essence of the question.

Hon SHANE JONES: I stated that a meeting was hosted at which they attended. Within such meetings, obviously there is to and fro of the content of environmental taxes. That is not to be construed and is not consistent with a direct invitation to do so.

Rt Hon David Carter: When was the Minister first aware that the State-owned enterprise (SOE) for which he is responsible is advocating for a nitrogen tax, a water tax, and a capital gains tax?

Hon SHANE JONES: I shall repeat what the Deputy Prime Minister said. Ours is, in many respects, a freedom Government. Along with a host of other Government entities, this SOE made a submission. I was made aware of that submission when questioned about it by the media.

Hon Nathan Guy: Why did Landcorp make a submission that was one month after the closing date, supporting a nitrogen fertiliser tax and a water tax, and not being opposed to a capital gains tax?

Hon SHANE JONES: It may come as a surprise to the other side of the House, but we observe our roles in a governance capacity, and then we appoint a board, and, indeed, we have appointed a fine New Zealander today, Dr Warren Parker, who, without a doubt, will address any governance challenges in that regard. We do not bully. We do not take for granted our responsibilities, and we allow the operational decision-making and the board of governors to function in a unified fashion. They have made their submission. It is now a matter of public record but it is only one of a host of submissions.

Rt Hon David Carter: Did the board of Landcorp sign off the submission to the Tax Working Group, or did the chief executive Steve Carden act on his own volition?

Hon SHANE JONES: That allegation about the CEO may have been the case under the regime on the other side of the House, but I am advised that the executive discussed and I am advised that the board of directors were aware of the contribution that has been made.

Point of Order—Deduction of Supplementary Questions

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise this point of order trying to be constructive. The events of question time today caused me to reflect on the frustration that is building amongst the Opposition. Can I just ask you to carefully look at the questions that are being framed and asked this week, and the answers that have been given? If the answers given are used to attack the Opposition or to attack, particularly, the Leader of the Opposition, tensions will rise to the extent that frustration will be expressed.

I think your action this week has not been helpful to the order of the House. If I could further, while I’m on my feet, ask you to reconsider your policy of deducting questions. That is unfair on the Opposition and as has been stated in a point of order by the Hon Chris Hipkins, the Opposition’s job is here to hold the Government to account. Those supplementary questions are valuable to the Opposition and I ask you to reflect, as I say, on the questions and answers of this week and as you do that reflection, would you please consider a different policy than the deducting of supplementary questions?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, when you’re doing that consideration, I wonder whether you would also give consideration to the repeated reflections on the Chair that we have come to see during question time. I have been removed from the House for reflecting on the Chair on more than one occasion. This, I believe, is the first time you, as the Speaker, have asked a member to leave the House for reflecting on the Chair. The previous Speaker, in fact, removed someone for coughing at one point during question time.

I think we do need to protect the role of the Chair and the impartiality of that role. I think that continued and repeated reflections on that are going to lead to disorder on both sides of the House.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): If I could speak further to that point of order, because I agree entirely with the comments made by the Hon Chris Hipkins, it is inappropriate for any member to reflect on the acting of the Speaker. He is in a very difficult position, required to make instant decisions, so I am not condoning any behaviour that reflects on the partiality or impartiality, on you, Mr Speaker. I’m just asking you to look at the broader matter of the quality of questions and the quality of answers and your policy of deducting supplementary questions.

SPEAKER: Sure, and I want to say to the member I will be looking again at the question time today. I have been reflecting on the supplementary question on which I arose when the Leader of the Opposition asked it. It was out of order on at least two counts, and as I rose he questioned my partiality. I have had representations from members of the National Party with regard to the deduction of questions and that was the reason that I reverted to the approach of my immediate predecessors on interventions reflecting on the Chair and reverted to the practice that the right honourable gentleman who took the point of order is very familiar with and followed himself.

I’m still not convinced that on all occasions it is the right thing to do, but I do want to assure members that I will attempt to keep order in the House. Part of that is making sure that questions and answers are, as far as is possible, within the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings and, most importantly, at the point that I am intervening, that I am not chipped with accusations similar to those that were made by two senior National Party members today.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for the committee stages of the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill, and the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill; and the second readings of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill and the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill.

A party vote was called for on the question that the motion be agreed to.

SPEAKER: Order! We’re going to start the voting again, and we’re going to start it without interjections from the Government benches, especially if the individual concerned wants to stay for the general debate.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Motion agreed to.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

What a start to the day: two weeks out from the end of the year and the Opposition is feeling it. I remember being 16 years old at secondary school and staging walk-outs just like that, but I had principled reasons for doing it, and I’m concerned that, actually, on the other side of the House it’s just general frustration and they’ve given up—they’ve given up.

We did notice who was left behind in their chairs, though, and couldn’t help but notice that it was the members who would probably contest the leadership. We had Judith Collins, we had Mark Mitchell, and who was the other one? I think we had Amy Adams left behind at the end of that wonderful walk-out. Then there were the few who probably have aspirations but wouldn’t have the votes: people like Nathan Guy and Michael Woodhouse. And then, of course, there’s always that one person who likes the drama, and that, of course, was the Rt Hon David Carter, who stayed behind to observe what was going on. But while that side of the House is staging walk-outs in frustration and because, two weeks out from the end of the year, they just can’t handle it anymore and they just want to go home, this side of the House is just getting on and doing the business.

One year into it and here we are, on this side of the House, with quite a lot to celebrate. In fact, listening to my colleague the Hon David Clark responding to questions from the Opposition, it may as well have been a patsy question from that side of the House, because he had the opportunity to talk about the mental health inquiry and the report that’s come out, a report that was commissioned by this side of the House because we care about mental health and we know that it’s been neglected for far too long because of a Government previously who took no action with regard to mental health. He was then able to reply that we haven’t been paralysed because of an inquiry and, in fact, over the course of the last year, he was able to tell Matt Doocey, “Keep in mind, we put $200 million towards district health boards—ring-fenced—for mental health, Matt Doocey.”

Keep in mind that, actually, we just announced the extension of the community services card, which is going to see hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders get access to low-cost primary health care. Keep in mind that we’ve rolled out nurses to decile 4 schools so that more of our children get the care they need. Keep in mind that we also rolled out the Mana Ake programme to primaries and intermediates in Christchurch and Kaikōura. So any accusation from that side of the House that we have been paralysed in the mental health space because of an inquiry is false, and clearly we’ve got lots of evidence to prove that that’s not the case.

That’s mental health. There are so many areas that I could talk about, but the one in particular—given that this will probably be my last chance in a general debate at the end of this year—after a year as the Minister for Social Development, that I really wanted to touch on was, of course, the Families Package. We came into Government very clear about what our priority was, and that was low to middle income New Zealanders. We showed that commitment by, within those first 100 days, committing $5.5 billion to those families. It was a shift away from the previous Government’s commitment to wanting to cut taxes, with a large proportion of those tax cuts going to the highest-income earners in this country. It was much more targeted, and it was the right thing to do.

I want to say that I’m very proud of the fact that we have rolled out changes and lifted the threshold with regards to Working for Families and that we have a new Best Start payment that recognises the importance of babies in this country, in those first three years in particular. I’m very proud of the fact that we’ve rolled out a winter energy payment that’s targeted towards beneficiaries, superannuitants, and those on veterans pensions. I’m very proud of the fact that all of those measures were done under this Government and were done with the right intentions and are targeting the families who need the support in this country.

A year into it, we’re energised. We could keep going. We don’t even need a holiday. Meanwhile, that side of the House is staging walk-outs because they just can’t handle the heat.

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National): Well, one might call this an extraordinary day or they might not, because it’s just another day that we’ve had no answers from the Prime Minister whatsoever on serious issues that this Opposition is putting to the Government of the day. So yes, we want to hear from the Prime Minister what is going on in the Sroubek fiasco and what her involvement is, and whether or not she is going to stand up to a victim—a victim—of that man, and her Government is putting her in danger. So yes, we do demand answers, and, yes, we feel like we stand in this House, day after day, asking straight and direct questions and not getting those answers from the Government.

We will stand here, day after day, and ask questions on behalf of New Zealanders on serious matters that the Prime Minister can duck and can dive and can avoid and can just use a lot of words, but not actually say anything. She can virtue signal and make everyone try and feel better without actually answering the questions that the public deserves, and they know what the questions are. Day after day, they’ve been asked, and they have not been answered. That’s not extraordinary, because we get that in this House pretty much day after day, where we’re not getting answers directly to our questions that we’ve spent a lot of time on. We understand that that’s the modus operandi of this Government and how their “most open and transparent Government”, I have to say, of the day chooses not to answer questions that are put to them straight, but instead to talk around them.

So that’s not extraordinary in many respects, but, yes, it is extraordinary. It’s extraordinary today that we saw the Leader of the Opposition and our shadow leader of the House thrown out of the House, and that is extraordinary. It’s extraordinary in many respects and, I think, a shame for this House, actually, that we’re seeing that kind of thing happen. It’s a shame that, actually, they did call it out, as they needed to. I find it extraordinary that we have had the shadow leader of the House thrown out for what I thought was a very benign comment, but I suppose that’s your judgment to make, and the judgment, Mr Speaker, that you have made.

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As someone who’s previously been ejected from the House for reflecting on the Speaker’s decision to eject another member, I wonder whether, in fact, this has gone on long enough. It is out of order to reflect on a decision of the Speaker to ask someone to leave the Chamber.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point—

SPEAKER: No, I don’t need any assistance, thank you. The member can continue. I think it is an important decision, and discussing around the principles of it, I think, is not a problem.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m purposely not repeating the things that they have said because I acknowledge that you have made your call and I respect you for that—in fact, I respect your position in this House. We need a Speaker that is here and that is doing it, and, in that context, I’m going to get back to the Government of the day and the fact that we are not getting the answers that we need.

I can understand the pressure that is going over when you can see a Leader of the Opposition that’s actually making a difference and that has an Opposition party that’s currently at 46 percent in the polls—so that makes the Government very uneasy. We can understand that the Prime Minister’s not feeling as strong at the end of the year as she may have been feeling at the beginning of the year and that that pressure is coming on the Government. I mean, we don’t see a plan for this country. Actually, I was thinking that, at best, we see ad hoc policy made, and at worst, what we’re seeing is actually horse-trading going on between three parties. So it’s like “We’ll give you this if you give us that.”, but it’s not whether or not that is the best thing for New Zealand and fits in with an actual plan for how we get this great country of ours actually thriving and going better.

So the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon Simon Bridges, will stand up in this House and he will challenge the Government daily, and he has a right to do that. I can acknowledge that the Prime Minister has a right to talk around it and not answer anything, and to think that that’s pretty clever and that that’s pretty smart and that that’s the way that it wants it, but I think that we’re seeing the results of that. I think the public is standing up and saying, “We want some straight answers from the very straight questions that we’re getting from the Opposition.”

Actually, it is quite serious, because this Sroubek fiasco is incredibly serious. There are still questions that have not been answered by either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Immigration, and now there are questions for the Minister of Police as well. We have a woman that is under protection who feels incredibly unsafe and we have officials that have gone there that should not even know her address, and the Prime Minister and the Minister of Immigration should see that for the seriousness that it is and should be asking those kinds of questions. So when our leader today stood up and asked those questions of the Prime Minister after the fiasco that we’ve had from the acting Prime Minister in the House answering on her behalf for the last couple of question times—for that to have been dismissed, then, yeah, that makes him a bit angry.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I want to start off by acknowledging the Hon Simon Bridges, in one of his questions earlier on today, for empathetically relating to someone who was feeling—quote—“vulnerable, exposed, and under threat”. The fact is that right now, as he looks around him, he would know all about that. I want to reflect also on his very, very vibrant support earlier in the week, the Hon Alfred Ngaro’s drive to make life jackets compulsory. They’re very, very useful when you’re about to be thrown overboard.

In a spirit of generosity, though, I do want to turn towards the National Party front bench and acknowledge the clear and decisive leadership, the consistent enunciation of clear, progressive values, and the skilful holding of the media spotlight. That’s right—it’s been a very good 2018 for Judith Collins. The problem that that Opposition has at the moment is that after a year of progress under this coalition Government, they simply cannot move out from underneath the shade of bitterness, anger, and resentment that came over them in October of 2017. Until they can do that and actually move into a more positive mode of engagement with the issues that actually affect New Zealanders, they are going to stay on that side of the House.

That is just fine over here, because we are getting on with the job of investing in the well-being of all New Zealanders. We’re doing that through investing in the basics, in the things that make a difference in real people’s lives in our country: decent and affordable housing, affordable and accessible healthcare, a good quality education system, and making sure that the working people of our country are rewarded fairly for their efforts, which has always been something important on this side of the House. We’ve heard about it today: only this week, on 1 December, a new package of initiatives coming in out of Budget 2018 to make sure that Kiwis have access to affordable healthcare—56,000 thirteen-year-olds now able to access free primary healthcare, and what a difference that is going to make in our communities up and down the country. When you’re a parent, the most important thing is ensuring that your kids are healthy and well looked after, and this is going to take away that barrier of additional cost that was holding back some of our kids from getting the healthcare that they needed. Five hundred and forty thousand community service holders are going to get cheaper primary healthcare—an average of a $20 or $30 per visit reduction in the cost that those New Zealanders will face when they go to the doctor.

That was the different choice, the different priority, of this Government. Rather than putting the money into tax cuts that will disproportionately benefit the most well off, we said it’s the housing, the healthcare, and the education of all New Zealanders that is the most important thing. After one year, we have made so much progress in those areas.

How about the 6,400 new State homes that were funded in Budget 2018? On this side of the House, we know the reality of homelessness and unaffordable housing in this country. It’s a reality that this Government, unlike the previous one, faces up to. We don’t just mouth the words in Opposition; here in Government, we are putting the resourcing in to make sure that New Zealanders have the decency and the dignity of affordable and decent housing. For those Kiwis who are striving away hard on minimum wage jobs, this is a coalition Government across New Zealand First, Labour, and the Greens which believes in a decent minimum wage, which believes in the living wage for more and more New Zealanders, so that those people can put the work in and stand on their own two feet by earning enough to live on with some dignity.

As well as all of those initiatives across housing, health, and education, I think, after one year in Government, one of the things that I am the most proud of is that this is a Government which is in tune with the spirit of justice, decency, and kindness that lies at the heart of the New Zealand national identity. I look back to things like decisions that our Minister of Justice, the Hon Andrew Little, has made, making sure that Teina Pora received his compensation after all of those years of suffering and injustice, when he was treated with callousness and bureaucratic indifference for so many years under that previous Government. I think of the pride that we feel on this side of the House to be a Government that is doing something proactive to try and find out what happened at Pike River and bring those 29 men home if we can.

This is a Government which is in tune with that spirit of decency, of kindness, and of New Zealanders working together. We are not a Government that leaves people behind; we bring them along because we are a stronger country when all New Zealanders are brought along on our national journey. It’s been one good year of progress, and on the evidence of today, we are looking forward to many, many more. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It’s ironic that the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand stood in this House and attacked a woman that was brave enough to come forward and actually tell us, share the information, and say that she had submitted under duress a letter of support to someone that didn’t deserve a New Zealand residency. You know what? They called her a “National informant”, because they don’t get it. They don’t understand it.

I had a gentleman come to my office three years ago. He was a Labour candidate. He ran for the Labour Party. He was coming to see me because he’d been to see his own team—they wouldn’t help him with an issue, so he came to me. Did I say, “Oh, sorry, you’ve been a Labour candidate. I’m not going to assist you. I’m not going to help you.”? No, I didn’t; I actually helped him with his issue, because that’s my job as a member of Parliament. I don’t care whether you support New Zealand First, I don’t care whether you’re a supporter or member of the Labour Party, the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, or the National Party—if you come and ask for help and support, you will get it. That’s my job.

The mere fact of the matter is that, actually, the estranged wife of Karel Sroubek has never been a member of the National Party. She has never been involved with the National Party. She’s never been involved with politics, full stop. The first point of contact for her, when she realised that she was in trouble because this Government was making bad decisions, was a retired Labour Cabinet Minister. That’s who she went to for assistance, and, actually, he gave her good advice—good, balanced, objective advice.

I want to take my time to put the record straight. I had a meeting this week with the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway in his office, with three of his officials and with the Hon Michael Woodhouse, who was our immigration Minister for five years—a fair bit of experience there. We could tell immediately that the immigration officials were very uncomfortable with the information that we were talking about and the information that was contained in that original file that the Minister had used to make his decision. It became clear very early on that they felt that they had put up a compelling case. They’d reached the threshold not once but twice with the information that they had in that file.

The Minister was left with no choice but to deport—to deport someone that had come to New Zealand on a stolen identity, had arrived here, had travelled several times back to a country that he said he wasn’t safe in, and when he came to New Zealand, he decided that he’d get involved in the drug importation business. He decided that he’d start to deal drugs. He decided that he would associate with Hell’s Angels gang members, that he’d kidnap people, and that he’d stand over people. He had charges back in the Czech Republic for badly assaulting two police officers and a taxi driver.

So when it came time for him to make his residency application, what did he do to his ex-wife? His estranged wife, the wife that is no longer with him—a Kiwi citizen, a young lady that came to this country at 17 years old—

Hon Todd McClay: For a better life.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Exactly, for a better life. She has become a citizen, has got a very close adopted family around her that, thankfully, have come around and supported her through what’s been the most traumatic time of her life. She realised that, actually, this was a bad guy. She left. She tried to get out of it. He came to her asking for a letter of support, which she declined, and he put so much pressure on her, including a taped telephone conversation where if she didn’t put the content of the letter that he wanted, then she was going to get a visit from people that were going to persuade her to do that—she was going to get a visit from people to persuade her to do that.

When I read that letter myself when I got it—when I read the letter that this Minister of Immigration came to this House and stood here and told all of us that he had reviewed that file and he was going to stand by his decision—I could tell within the first 30 seconds that it was completely contrived. If I was the Minister, the first thing I would’ve done to my officials is say, “Go back and verify this. Go back and speak to the estranged wife, because this looks completely contrived.” Not only was it completely contrived; actually, it was pretty weak. It was very, very weak—which brings us to the next point.

We want to know who the representations were made by. Who made those representations? This is the key. This has got a horrible whiff about it, and every day, as we go on, that whiff just keeps getting strong and stronger. Who made the representations? That’s the real key to the worst decision this country has ever seen made by an immigration Minister. Yeah—you can have that look on your face, Mr Speaker. I defy anyone to show me a worse decision that has been made by an immigration Minister when you take into account public safety and you take into account someone that came to this country on false pretences and then engaged in a life of crime, intimidation, and assaults.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Jealousy is a sin. Jealousy is riddled through the other side of the House. Number one, we have the leaks anonymously flowing day by day; secondly, we have the bullying, the echoes of which grow day by day. In fact, we are now marrying the bullying to the leaking. But how did the leader decide he would quell this new type of destabilising activity, reaching levels we haven’t seen before? He decided, with his top team this morning, that they would stage a deliberate walkout—a clearly conceived, orchestrated campaign, under the rubric of changing the narrative.

Well, the narrative is, number one, a deeply divided, tired group of politicians who have not achieved much of anything on that side of the House as they come to Christmas; a large group of youngsters desperate to seize control of the agenda, and then to go and begin deliberately leaking, like the Wally Haumaha - related leaks. And what did that show? It showed that the man had a completely clean bill of health despite the fact of deliberate, poisonous, insidious leaks from backbenchers on that side of the House.

Now, unfortunately, that drip, drip—not unlike Chris Carter in days of old—is starting to intrude within their own esprit de corps, within their own ethos. But I have read recently—in fact, last week—that scientists in America have determined that alien life is already here on Earth. It’s sitting on the other side of the House. They are alienating themselves from whoever they conceive to be their supporters. They are relying on alien-like sources of information to drip down into the various silos of the fourth estate.

Meanwhile, with my characteristic modesty, I toil in the vineyards of the provincial New Zealand economy. I have had the pleasure of showing up how lacklustre and disinterested the Aussie-owned banks are in working effectively with New Zealand businesses. And what do we see from the other side of the House? Defending those stupendous salaries; defending that extravagant, unfettered level of privilege enjoyed by the Aussie banks. But wait: my colleague who sits over here, Mr Faafoi, has a profound body of policy work under way, and I only hope the remit passed by my party, the remit imposing a long-overdue levy on the uncaring Aussie banks that are hollowing out regional New Zealand.

I’m also, I have to say, continuing to plant trees. Now, some might say, as I did on telly, that I’m Hana Kōkō—a bit like Santa Claus. There has to be a bit of colour and personality. I have to say, I am not Oprah Winfrey, but there is probably a tree under your chair, Mr Mitchell.

We will not be deterred from working with NGOs, working with businesses, and working with the banking fraternity that those who seek to redeem themselves—because coming their way is a whole host of bad news from the royal commission in Australia, and when that news comes out, I guarantee you that they will be seeking ways to work more effectively with our Government, because what we smell on that side of the Tasman, it’s impossible that such a taint is not on this side of the Tasman. But that pleasure awaits the banking industry and those reformers, lucid thinkers, and clean pairs of hands, like the first provincial citizen standing before you.

Now, I want to wind up here and say it’s very disappointing that New Zealand voters have seen our colleagues on the other side of the House abandon the ship. They say that before the ship strikes aground, the rats go first. As we say in Māori, ko te kiore puta wau—the rats go first. Well, I’m not going to condemn Mr Simon Bridges to that kind of epithet, but the fact that today he’s seen wearing a life jacket as the waka goes down and they all flee—very portentous—very portentous.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): I want to start by thanking the Hon Shane Jones for his sermon today. He may be good at saving souls, but he’s not going to solve the problems the current Government faces. He has another crack at the Aussie banks, suggests they should pay a levy of $100 million because they shut down the odd provincial bank around the country. He’s the associate Minister for State-owned enterprises, and Kiwibank and New Zealand Post are closing branches all around the country—all around the country. There’s a word for it, Mr Speaker—it begins with “h”, ends with “y”. I won’t dare use it; you’ve had enough difficulty today, but it’s fairly obvious to most people who listen to the Hon Shane Jones.

Today, I have never seen a Prime Minister look so uncomfortable. As we continue to ask questions about one Mr Karel Sroubek—

Hon Damien O’Connor: I can list many times: Bill English, John Key.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: —the Prime Minister dodged all the questions today. She might think the story will go away over the Christmas break; I’ve got a message for her: this story won’t go away over the Christmas break. When we come back in February and work through to March, mark my words, Hon Damien O’Connor: the truth will come out—the truth will come out.

But today, I wanted to devote my time to asking the Hon Shane Jones what’s going on with Landcorp. Landcorp claims to be a leader of the New Zealand agricultural sector. A lot of farmers I know don’t particularly like Landcorp, and after the events of the last few days, most farmers will despise Landcorp, under Mr Jones as the responsible Minister, because what Landcorp did is they went to the Tax Working Group not on time. Somebody asked them to put the submission in. It was one month after all other submissions had closed. Every other submission—6,700 of them—went immediately on the website; for some very strange reason, the Landcorp submission did not go on the website. When we finally got hold of a copy of it, it advocates for a nitrogen tax, a water tax, and a capital gains tax. I ask the Hon Shane Jones, as the responsible Minister for Landcorp, what’s Landcorp doing even making a submission to the Tax Working Group and advocating for three new taxes which will damage the agricultural sector more than any other sector in New Zealand?

Note that Mr Shane Jones has gone quiet on this occasion—the first citizen of the provinces hasn’t got an answer to my question. When he goes back to his office, I suggest to him that he have a look at the board of Landcorp, because he said in the House today that they knew that a submission was being made. He didn’t tell us in the House today whether they knew what was in that submission, but I suspect that if they look carefully and ask the question of the board, he’ll find the board were absolutely hoodwinked by that submission. And if they weren’t hoodwinked, then what he should do is look at the qualifications and the suitability of every board member on Landcorp. Because if they’re going to be there advocating against New Zealand farmers—

Hon Damien O’Connor: A bunch of tired old Tories you have there.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: It might suit the Hon Damien O’Connor, who’s not respected by New Zealand farmers and not admired by New Zealand farmers—he’s known not to be an advocate for New Zealand farmers—but don’t let the same thing happen to Landcorp.

While the Minister Shane Jones goes back to his office to sort out the Landcorp board, he needs a board that will sort out the management within Landcorp. The environmental reference group, under the chairmanship of a Marnie Prickett, and also supported by the likes of Guy Salmon and Dr Alison Dewes, will not be there advocating for New Zealand farmers. When he has a look then at the chief executive Mr Steve Carden, get the board to ask the real relevant questions. Because I’m told Mr Steve Carden intends to stand for the Labour Party at the next election, and if he does he should resign his job now and stand as a candidate for the Labour Party and take his chances at—

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Mr Speaker, thank you, very much. Whoo! What an afternoon. I was just saying to people over the weekend when they were saying, “Look, we don’t want to watch”—[Interruption] Whoo! When I was trying to convince them to watch the parliamentary TV, then what better TV to watch this afternoon? But can I just say that when I dropped off my 3½-year-old yesterday, it reminded me of just that. There was talking here. They couldn’t hear it properly. Someone stormed out. Someone told someone else. And then the whole lot sort of stormed out of the room from getting the plasticine into the sleep room. Amazing! Who would have thought, 24 hours later, I’m seeing it in the Parliament of New Zealand. But here it is, throwing toys out. God, how exciting! And what was more exciting, actually—I was just watching the member for Hutt South, Chris Bishop there. He was thinking, “Is this my chance—is this my chance?”

Kiritapu Allan: A contender.

PAUL EAGLE: No, no, no. He was. He looked around, back, forward, and over there: “Is this my turn?” He sort of had the package ready to go, and to go from there to there—like, “Could I do it?”

Jamie Strange: He had the press release ready to go.

PAUL EAGLE: Could he do it? He had the press release ready to go, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, anything else, and he was ready to go—Heather du Plessis-Allan as well, over here. But look, he was ready to go and I thought “Is this it? Am I going to witness an historic moment?” But it wasn’t to be. Look, this could have been true history in the making, but not today. So the anger, the frothing at the mouth, the kids play, the toys—whoo! I’m excited.

But what I want to say is this: I’m really excited at the fact that it’s taken me about six months to get a speaking slot in the general debate.

Hon Member: And you’ve wasted half of it.

PAUL EAGLE: Yeah, yeah. No, no. They always save the good ones for the exciting moments, and that’s why I’m here today. They roll me out because they know that today is going to be the big day, and it happened when I last spoke and it happened again this afternoon. I always get the big days. I love it. I don’t know why. It’s karma. I don’t know why. But in that speech I talked about the dark clouds over the Rongotai electorate, but guess what? On Friday, the dark clouds were removed because the Rt Hon Prime Minister came and opened my electorate office and instantly, the 150 people—National Party voters, I have to say, were added into that list—looked up in Newtown and the skies opened and what they saw was hope. They saw heart. And that’s what the Prime Minister spoke about. She spoke about hope and heart, and I thought “Now, that’s a Prime Minister giving people the real message.” Look, I was just so relieved that when I looked up, I thought, “No more. No more dark clouds. We’ve given people hope.” She talked strongly about an MP who had heart—that’s me, by the way. It was me. And I thought: what can we put on the electorate office wall—maybe a painting of a heart or my photo with the Prime Minister? But I digress. What I want to talk about, really, is the hope that she gave and that this Government is giving to at least the people of Rongotai but, I know, all of New Zealand.

Look, I come back to that familiar ground that I love talking about, and that’s housing. Everywhere I look in Rongotai, there’s houses being built and I think “Thank you.” to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development—this new cut-through agency, the Urban Development Authority. What a name. It’s going to get building, it’s going to look after tenants, and it’s certainly going to work with the private sector and the community, to say “Let’s get building again.” I have the electorate where the first State house was built and opened. I only wish they’d open the first KiwiBuild house in Rongotai too. Never mind, there’ll be a new initiative and I’ll make sure that Rongotai gets the benefit of that too.

But I digress again. This is a Government that’s delivering hope, with MPs and members of a coalition Government who truly have heart. Look, can I encourage those who are watching—all seven of you—that this is the channel to watch. This is where the excitement comes from. And, look, when I’m back in nine months’ time, Mr Speaker, you can expect another riveting speech—

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): Look, I’m very pleased to speak in this general debate. I just want to start by following on from the member that we’ve just heard, Paul Eagle. [Paul Eagle gestures to another member] Why doesn’t that member—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat, please. That sort of action between two members is not appropriate within the House. If the members want to carry on that way, they should leave the House.

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I just want to follow on from that member and ask that member if he really would turn up to the tens of thousands of teachers in New Zealand that have said they’re going to be striking at the beginning of next year and tell them that this Government is about hope and heart, given that we have had not only three offers that have been rejected by the teachers but also that this Government has, what I consider to be, a bit of a five-step plan for those people that disagree with them.

The first step in that plan is to blame National. Despite having billions of dollars in surplus—billions of dollars in surplus—they will blame National even though we had the global financial crisis and the earthquakes. We see that on every issue. We’re 13 months in. There is no responsibility whatsoever taken by one single Minister. Every time they get up—and we hear it from the members of the public—it’s always National’s fault.

The second thing that they do is they run a mile from their promises. So in education alone, as I said before, we have got strikes looming. They made huge commitments. They said they were going to end donations. Chris Hipkins went and told Hilary Barry he was going to end donations in the first Budget. It hasn’t happened. They promised that there’d be a special education coordinator in schools. They’ve scaled that back. They promised that they were going to modernise every single classroom. Again, we don’t hear anything about that.

The third thing that they do is they run down anyone that criticises them. And we see that all the time, in Opposition. An example of that is these videos that have appeared around the strikes. We’ve never heard of this before: Ministry of Education propaganda videos around the Government’s offer. But, again, they run down those people that criticise the Government, because that is part of their strategy to stay in power.

Let’s look at this particular issue. If you’re a teacher that thought that you were promised more than 19 education promises that haven’t been delivered—what they then do is they give their money to their coalition partners. So who’s getting money? In November alone, we have seen—and I take the Minister’s point—somewhere between $700 million and $900 million more expenditure. Who is that going to? It’s going to Shane Jones and other members, to ensure that the Government stays in power. It’s going into trees and racehorses, rather than supporting teachers around their workload and pay. The reality is that that is part of their plan to stay in power, and that is a bad culture.

Look, many members in this House—as I’ve said before—come here to make a difference. We want to support teachers. The reality is that there are teacher shortages at the moment. National did an amount, but we need to ensure that, through this collective bargaining, we do support teachers. This Government has billions of dollars in surplus, and it is not OK to say—like Chris Hipkins said—that there’s no more money, when more than $700 million has been announced in the last month alone; when $2.8 billion has been given to tertiary students, and might I add that that is a failed policy because we are not seeing the participation and we are not seeing disadvantaged groups being helped. So it’s quite right for a number of teachers to be out there saying, “What about us? Why are we not the priority?” And I’ll tell you what, parents support them. The conversation that I’m hearing at the school run and the conversation that I am hearing on the ground is that this Government rode into power with a group of coalition partners that promised a kinder country, and the people that they are not supporting are teachers. When it comes to pay and workload, at a time when we’ve got larger choices, they have the least priority.

Trees are a priority, racehorses are a priority, tertiary students are a priority, but what does Chris Hipkins say? He basically calls them greedy. He goes out there with a propaganda campaign. Well, here’s my message to the Minister: people remember broken promises. You have a once-in-a-generation chance to ensure that we do the right thing around workload and pay. Teachers have sent a very strong message with three rejections of the offer. Get back to the table—unlike what he told us today—and provide another offer so that we can ensure that we’ve got teachers in classrooms and that we don’t continue to have the disruption that we’ve had.

This is a Government that runs down critics. This is a Government that doesn’t prioritise areas like education. This is a Government of failed promises.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I want to speak about the most recently released—released yesterday, actually—report of the Government Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction. It was, obviously, released yesterday. This report encompasses the findings—having spoken to 2,000 people at 26 meetings around the country, and of 5,200 submitters.

I want to speak to the breadth of this consultation because I think that it’s incredibly important to drive home that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. The last inquiry which we saw into mental health in this country—the last nationwide inquiry—occurred in the 1990s, after the 1980s through 1990s closure of a number of institutions, whereby people who were institutionalised were released back out into their communities. A kind of moral panic response resulted, and it was important that we as a society looked into how we best look after each other.

However, this inquiry goes far broader than those past inquiries. It has far wider terms of reference, particularly in looking beyond the health sector and services and into social determinants of mental ill health. But, notably, it also goes further than just looking at mental ill health by itself, and includes the problem of addictions and abuse of alcohol, gambling, substances, and other drugs. Notably, 50 to 80 percent of New Zealanders will experience mental distress or addiction challenges or both in their lifetime and a large number of people will experience those two things coexisting. I just want to point to something which is mentioned in this report as a result of those numbers of submissions, where the inquiry board says “We were told that addiction is the opposite of connection, a taniwha that isolates users and holds them in its grip.”

What are we talking about when we talk about mental health and addiction? I think if we flip the issue on its head, ultimately we’re talking about well-being or, perhaps, a lack thereof. We’re talking about things like community, care, kindness, empathy, connection, purpose, and meaning. And those last two are critical, because purpose and meaning are critical to a sense of identity and a sense of belonging and a sense, indeed, of well-being. But it is difficult to find that purpose and that meaning if you can’t navigate your way through life under enormous amounts of stress and strain. Over the past few months, I’ve been travelling around the country speaking at hui, particularly to university students, on the issue of mental health, and I think someone put the point most eloquently when they said that they can’t afford to make mistakes.

When you can’t financially, emotionally, or otherwise afford to make mistakes, you can’t find your feet. When it’s too expensive to do that, I think that it’s a matter of course that people are experiencing mental ill health and issues. These environmental factors of income, health, education, and housing are critical, because more and more research and evidence is showcasing that that’s how most mental health issues end up emerging, and even if you have underlying psychological or biological susceptibility, it is exacerbated.

The biggest factor that informs the environment that we as people and society live in is our culture, and culture, by definition, is a shared set of values. We do not presently have a culture that values or prioritises well-being. We do not currently have a culture that values or prioritises people. Instead, we seem to have a culture which values individualism and competition—which isn’t by itself a bad thing, but is when it runs away from us and turns into a culture of isolation.

I think that this culture is, unfortunately, perhaps, most manifest in our Parliament and our parliamentary culture, which, I note, is supposed to be representative of Aotearoa New Zealand. In this House I have sat here and I have listened to jokes about the mental health of other members and about the drugs or medication that they may be on. Today I am standing up and saying that that is not good enough, and we, as representatives in this country, have to hold ourselves to a higher standard. I presume we will have a conversation about the expenses inherent in this report, but good manners don’t cost anything. Kia ora.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, this morning Chris Hipkins, the Minister of Education, announced the co-location of Marlborough Boys’ and Girls’ Colleges on the Bohally McLauchlan Street site, which is a very good decision which I applaud. However, while the announcement has been welcomed, I note through my Official Information Act documents that I requested that, in fact, the Minister delayed this whole process by going back and revisiting the business case. So we are now 12 months down the track and we have exactly the same position that we did prior to opening that up. So we’ve lost 12 months; the work is virtually stopped where there was a whole lot of work that could be done before a site was selected—and there were some problems in finding a site, I admit that, and it was quite difficult to find an appropriate site. However, one has been found and Bohally will go over to Marlborough Boys’ College. We’ll have two colleges located on the same site, which will be a massive opportunity for the education prospects in Marlborough, because we can now have a wider range of subject choices with the two colleges being co-located.

Also, there is the opportunity for a major step change with the likes of the New Zealand School of Winegrowing which is operating in Marlborough, which is quite an innovative innovation in Marlborough where level 2 students can do their level 2 NCEA with a wine focus. So they get their literacy credits through doing geography, for example, on wine regions of the world. They can do the chemistry credits through doing wine chemistry, and who would not find that interesting to do a practical experiment that they can see the outcomes for. And I see you’re smiling there, Mr Speaker; I can assure you they’re not able to drink the wine while they’re at school. But children need to have that link, and students do—when we can see a purpose, we can see something at the end of it, they will engage much more. To keep people engaged in the education system is a great thing, and there are more opportunities to tailor our education system in that way to keep young people engaged. So I applaud the decision, but I think we have let 12 months go by which, perhaps, shouldn’t have.

Now I’d like to turn to Landcorp. We heard the Rt Hon David Carter speak about this earlier in the debate. Landcorp owns 385,000 hectares, with a book value of about $1.7 billion. The last two years it hasn’t returned a dividend to the Crown. I think it is a leading farming organisation—it’s leading the low returns stakes. It’s a waste of New Zealand’s resources to have all that money tied up in Landcorp. Now, the reasons Landcorp is there are historical, and, certainly, some of the land that’s there has been held aside for Treaty settlements. That’s right and proper, and we should ring-fence some of that land for future potential Treaty settlements. However, we went into the last election with a policy of freeing up that land to sell for lease-to-buy options for young farmers and using the profits from those sales to really get into the bottom of highly efficient and innovative farming methods, which is something that Landcorp could do. Having our money—that is, the Crown’s and the taxpayers’ money, ultimately—tied up in an investment like that which could and should be in private hands—and I think it should be a fair way of going about it.

Incidentally—and I’m sure, Mr Speaker, you will remember—there were balloted farms back through history, through the wars and post-war periods, to allow people to get on the land, and this is a perfect vehicle to do that. It’s not people getting a free ride, but it is an opportunity to get the land back into productive individual farmers’ hands. They would have to work hard for it at market rates, but it’d be a stepping stone for those people to get on that ladder, and I think it’s high time that happened.

I’m absolutely appalled that they went to the Tax Working Group in what we’ve now heard was a very secret way—where their submission wasn’t published, they came in with a late submission, and then, ironically, they submitted on a nitrogen tax when they were responsible for the clearance of a massive area of forestry on the central plateau, which led to very real concerns about nitrates in the Waikato catchment. And now, to turn around and say, “Well, you know, we really should have a nitrate tax.”, it’s a bit rich, I think. And then, when they talk about a capital gains tax, which would not actually apply to them, I think it’s appalling. Thank you.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): The Bible tells us that when Jesus was crucified, the veil was torn from top to bottom and people got to look into the tabernacle. Today, the veil was torn from the National Party, and we got to see what was behind the veil. What did we see? We saw an Opposition in disarray. We saw an Opposition, because they didn’t like the answers they were given, take industrial action. We saw the National Party showing their true colours: a party for the unions—a party for the unions. We saw what sits just below that veneer: that they want to be united. They sort of drifted out, one by one. It was a bit of a messy sort of movement. But we saw behind the veil.

I fully support the right of the National Party MPs to take industrial action, and I suspect they will now support the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, which is up next.

SPEAKER: Order! Yeah, that’s up next, and the member’s not going to refer to it again.

JAMIE STRANGE: Apologies, Mr Speaker. I’d just like to help the National Party just a little bit with a couple of slogans that they could maybe work on, you know, for their new union-based party.

First of all, who’s going to be the boss of this party? I had to look around and I thought: who is the hard-core union boss? I looked at Mark Mitchell: that steely look in his eye, the firm hand—Mr Mitchell, I believe you’re the man, maybe with your sidekick Erica Stanford.

But let’s look on to what the Government’s been doing this year. What a year we’ve had. In contrast to the Opposition party floundering around, we have a Government who are organised, we have a coalition Government who have a clear plan, and we’re getting on with the job of governing.

I’d just like to highlight a couple of key points here. The first one is housing. At the election in 2017, we heard loud and clear from the New Zealand public that people wanted action on housing. The previous regime were floundering around the edges not taking action. This Government, in the first year, have already taken action on housing. Our Minister the Hon Phil Twyford has done a number of things. The first one is he’s starting to address homeownership. There is a huge issue in this country about people being able to afford their first homes. In the city of Hamilton, where I’m based, 42 percent of Hamiltonians are renting, and the vast majority of them would like to own their own home, but it’s getting out of reach. I am proud that this Government has started a scheme called KiwiBuild.

Hon Mark Mitchell: KiwiBuild’s even more expensive.

JAMIE STRANGE: We’re under way, Mr Mitchell. We are under way, and the targets—we’re on target to reach them.

Another area is rental fairness. I’ve been a landlord. My wife and I have had a number of rentals over time, and we understand the importance of the relationship between the landlord and the tenant. It’s important that we have fairness in the rental market. There is a power imbalance, and we’re working hard around that. Healthy homes is another area we’re working on. It’s important that homes are warm and dry, particularly for children. That would be healthy.

The second one I’d like to touch on is the Provincial Growth Fund. I’d like to acknowledge the Hon Shane Jones for the wonderful work that he is doing in this area—the champion of the regions. And I know the Opposition are absolutely obsessed with Minister Jones. They’re excited about the work that he’s doing. In my region—[Interruption] I can’t hear what the members—you’re all talking at once. The discussions that are taking place within the regions—there’s a lot of excitement around the Provincial Growth Fund. Business cases are being formed. Feasibility studies are being done. For the first time in a long time, the regions are being listened to. The regions have a voice.

I’ll finish on the economy. The economy is in good heart. GDP growth: 3 percent per year forecast. We’re running a surplus. The Opposition have short memories. The previous Labour-led Government ran nine years of surpluses, and this coalition Government are running surpluses, and I expect that they will continue. We’re putting money aside for a rainy day. I’m proud of what this coalition Government has achieved.

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Wasn’t that a fantastic speech. I had every intention of responding to Jamie Strange, but I think we’ve heard from the Labour Party research unit about four or five times today. What I’ll do instead, though, is I really enjoyed the contributions by my colleague Stuart Smith and also by—I was going to say Paul Quinn—Paul Eagle, across the Chamber. Not Paul Quinn any more, thankfully.

SPEAKER: It’s all the same, really.

ANDREW FALLOON: Paul Eagle, across the Chamber. What Stuart was talking about—what I thought was fantastic, actually, because he’s been pushing it for a very long time and, finally, we have the Minister of Education catching up and putting a very significant investment into Marlborough through a joint college. Of course, Paul Eagle, our colleague from Rongotai, was very excited because the significant investment in Rongotai is a brand new electorate office. After 14 months, he’s finally got an office. So well done, Paul.

But I want to talk about investment in mid-Canterbury and South Canterbury this afternoon because we’ve seen significant growth in that region in the last seven or eight years, in particular, largely under a National Government. What that’s meant—what that growth has meant—is there now is enormous pressure on the existing infrastructure that exists, particularly north of Ashburton, in relation to State Highway 1. It’s a critical transport corridor of the South Island, and it’s become far more dangerous.

Just to put some numbers on that, over the last 15 years alone, international visitors into New Zealand have doubled, and we are seeing a lot of that transport—a lot of that traffic—now flowing down the east coast of the South Island as more and more international visitors get out of buses and move into independent transport. We’ve also seen a lot of growth around Timaru, with PrimePort, where the number of ships entering in to PrimePort has gone from 350 just a few years ago to now 500, and that’s being reflected across the whole South Canterbury economy, particularly as that transport moves through to the inland port of Rolleston.

All of that traffic has increased and caused traffic numbers to have doubled in the last 20 years—traffic volumes have doubled in the last 20 years on State Highway 1 between Ashburton and Christchurch. The unfortunate effect of that is that the road has become far more dangerous, and I get people coming into my office every week saying that they no longer feel comfortable travelling on that road, because they feel too nervous about it. Unfortunately, those numbers have been reflected in statistics. We’ve seen, since 2000, 128 fatalities and serious crashes on that road, making it the second-most dangerous stretch of highway in the country.

So what’s the Government done since they’ve come in? Well, unfortunately, we had plans to four-lane that highway between Ashburton and Christchurch to reflect the huge growth that there’s been. So what’s the new Government done?

Hon Damien O’Connor: Nine years of National—nothing done. Outrageous!

ANDREW FALLOON: Well, unfortunately, they’ve shelved it, and the reason they’ve shelved it is they’ve ripped $5 billion—$5 billion—out of the State highway network. They’ve taken it out of regional economies and put it into Auckland—solely into Auckland rail and cycleway projects.

Mr O’Connor—he’s gone very quiet over there, because he knows this. He knows about the significant investment we put into the Coast through the new bridge, which that member never did when he was in Government. But that won’t happen under a Labour Government because the money just isn’t there.

That’s not the only thing. That’s not the only handbrake to growth in the mid-Canterbury and South Canterbury economy at the moment. The second one is immigration. Before the last election, the Labour Party came out with a plan to reduce net migration by 20,000 to 30,000 per year. Unfortunately, that’s now started to bite. We’ve seen immigration numbers come off by about 10,000 since they came into Government. I look at my electorate of Rangitata, particularly in Ashburton, where you’ve now got 500 vacancies in a district of 34,000 people—34,000 people and 500 job vacancies. It’s having a serious impact on the growth of our economy. It’s holding back employers from future growth.

So what’s been the response to that from this Government? Well, unfortunately, we’ve had silence. Iain Lees-Galloway came down to Timaru in March. We haven’t heard a peep from him since. He promised new immigration settings would be in place before the end of this year. Well, it’s now December and we haven’t seen anything of it. What’s been his focus? His focus has been defending his botched decision to grant residency to convicted drug smugglers.

So in the House today, we had front-bench National MPs asking serious questions of this Government about that process, and they refused to answer. They refused to answer. There was not a single straight answer out of the Government about why Iain Lees-Galloway granted residency to that convicted drug smuggler, and not a single answer about the protection of his estranged wife. This Government has refused to answer basic questions. That’s their responsibility, and it’s our right to ask them.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Employment Relations Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I move, That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

This Government is laying the foundations for a modern economy. Part of our plan for this is to ensure that we grow and share prosperity fairly. As the Deputy Prime Minister said, we need to restore a human face to capitalism. One of the most important ways for us to do this is to ensure that hard work is rewarded.

For the significant majority of New Zealand households, wages from work make up most of their income. Too many people saw their real wages slip during the deregulation fever of the 1980s and 1990s, and inequality grew faster in New Zealand than anywhere in the developed world. The Clark Labour Government repaired much of this damage. One of the things they did was to recognise the importance of collective bargaining to increasing people’s wages.

People on collective agreements are more than twice as likely to receive a pay increase in any year than those on individual agreements. Along with this, unions help give working people a voice in their workplaces. Progressive, smart, and people-focused employers are realising the ability of unions to bring the workforce alongside the aspirations of business, generating better engagement, better safety, and better profits. This is why many of the most influential global bodies such as the International Monetary Fund and the OECD are encouraging the growth of collective bargaining.

The other side of the House has made their narrow and pinched ambition for workplaces clear. They would return New Zealand workplaces to the 1990s, or even the 1890s, if they could. The coalition Government knows that we can do much better for New Zealanders, and with the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, we are.

Changes made to the employment relations framework by the previous Government saw an erosion of working people’s rights and a weakening of their voice through attacks on unions. This Government believes that people should have a say in the running of their workplace and have the ability to get a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. We want to lift New Zealand into a high-wage, high-skill economy with thriving regions. To that end, this bill strengthens the role of collective bargaining, worker voice, and union rights in the workplace to deliver better wages and conditions of employment, and this bill lifts minimum standards for employees and delivers much-needed protections for workers, especially vulnerable workers.

This Government believes that bargaining in good faith means making a real effort to come to an agreement. This bill strengthens the collective bargaining framework to deliver more efficient bargaining and better outcomes. The bill also improves how multi-employer collective agreements (MECAs) are bargained by removing the ability to opt out of this process and requiring employers to come to the bargaining table. However, if, after bargaining, an employer has reasonable grounds for deciding a MECA is not right for their circumstances, the bill expressly provides for this and does not require parties to conclude a MECA.

Pay is a key term of employment, and the ability to exclude pay from collective bargaining runs against this very purpose. This bill requires that collective agreements must include rates of wages and salary. Changes made by National allowed employers to deduct wages for partial strikes. In some instances, this has resulted in employees losing pay for low-level action, such as wearing a T-shirt instead of their uniform. This bill removes that unfair system.

The bill provides new employees the protection of the terms and conditions of the collective for the first 30 days of employment by restoring the so-called 30-day rule. It also gives employees the opportunity to be provided with information about the role and function of the union so that they can make an informed choice about whether they want to join a union.

Union delegates play an important role in the workplace, including helping to resolve workplace problems before they escalate, helping members in workplaces make decisions, and supporting members who ask for help. This bill provides union delegates paid time off during work hours to perform their representative role, unless the time off unreasonably interrupts the employee’s performance of their duties or the employer’s business.

The bill ensures that where there are employees that are covered under or that are bargaining towards a collective agreement, union representatives are able to enter workplaces without consent. This can be critical if the situation is urgent. In all other situations, the current consent requirements will apply. Representatives will still be required to abide by reasonable security, health, and safety procedures and policies. They must also access the workplace at a reasonable time and in a reasonable way, having regard to the normal business operations of the workplace.

The bill restores an employee’s entitlement to a set number and duration of rest and meal breaks. The previous Government took this right away. We are restoring it. This will give employees enough time to rest, refresh, and eat during work hours and to be able to continue to work safely. The bill includes a narrow exception for those businesses that provide an essential service or that engage in the security of New Zealand.

The previous Government introduced an exemption to the Act that meant small to medium sized employers (SME) could be exempt from having to take on existing employees when a business is restructured or transferred. These rules provide critical protection for vulnerable employees such as cleaners and caterers by allowing them to transfer their employment, with the same terms, conditions, and entitlements, to an incoming employer when a contract that affects the work they are doing changes hands. The bill repeals the SME exemption and restores the right for employees to transfer on the same terms and conditions. We believe this is a fundamental protection, regardless of the employer’s size. This bill also sets out a clear process for other vulnerable categories of employees to be added to the list of workers that receive protections.

Finally, this bill also limits the use of trial periods to small and medium sized employers that have fewer than 20 employees, so that the majority of employees have access to the unjustified dismissal protections from the outset of employment. The bill retains the benefits of trial periods for those firms that face greater risks and costs associated with recruitment, performance management, and dismissal processes, compared to the resources that they have.

To conclude, this bill provides a package of measures that will enhance the employment relations framework to deliver fairer wages and conditions of employment. We are making things better for Kiwi families.

The bill was the subject of careful scrutiny by the Education and Workforce Committee. I’d like to thank the members of the committee for their work on the bill, and I’d also like to thank our coalition and confidence and supply partners for their constructive work and advocacy on this bill.

This bill is all about building collaborative and constructive relationships for greater productivity in New Zealand, and I think it is absolutely splendid that the way this bill has reached its final form is through the deliberations between the three parties of this constructive and collaborative Government. We are showing leadership in the way we do Government, and I hope that this demonstrates to the workplaces and to the employers and employees of New Zealand the benefits of working constructively together. I would also like to thank the officials who have worked hard on progressing this bill. Together, all of us, collectively, have made it an incredible bill. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It was telling that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety couldn’t even fill 10 minutes defending this bill—couldn’t even fill 10 minutes to defend this bill. This is a bill that the National Party fundamentally and absolutely opposes and objects to. I give fair notice, on behalf of the Opposition, to the Parliament of New Zealand and to the employers and workers of New Zealand that we will repeal this legislation at the first possible opportunity after we are re-elected in 2020.

The only thing that this bill does is fulfil a promise made by the parliamentary Labour Party to their trade union mates. It was a bill that was introduced in January of this year and then ran into heavy weather amongst the coalition partners. The fact that it’s taken us through till December to go through a process that the Labour Party really wanted pushed through very quickly is telling of how much tension there is within the coalition parties.

This is a bill that does pretty much just one thing, and that is that it grows the market share of the trade union movement. It’s designed to increase union powers, to increase union membership, to increase union influence, and, of course, to increase the cash flow that goes to trade unions through increased membership. In the last 30 years since the establishment and development of what we’ve come to know and rely upon as the enterprise bargaining model, union membership has plummeted—absolutely plummeted. It’s plummeted to the point where only about 10 percent—well, it’s actually 83 percent. Let me put it around the other way: 83 percent of New Zealand employees are not currently members of a trade union. And this bill is designed to try and remedy that, to try and take us back to the 1970s.

The collective proposition that’s put here by these changes in this bill will take us well back past the Helen Clark administration days. It takes us right back to the days of Tom Skinner, Ken Douglas, and the militant trade union movement. For those of us that are of an age to remember that, this is a very scary piece of legislation. Already we’ve seen trade unions this year flexing their industrial muscle in a way that we have not seen in three decades. There have been more strikes and more industrial action in the last 12 months than we’ve had in any year in the last 30 years. On that side of the House, opposite, they say, “Well, this is because of some kind of pent-up frustration.” Well, actually, no, it’s not. This is a result of a Government that has emboldened and empowered the trade union movement and created an expectation that going on strike is a good thing, and that going on strike is something that is laudable and something to be rewarded and welcomed. Well, exactly the opposite is true.

This is a bill that, amongst other things, creates an opportunity for trade union representatives to visit many hundreds, if not thousands, of workplaces up and down the countryside without notice, without approval, without consent, and without any regard to the appropriateness of that visit, and that just, if nothing else, breaches matters of common decency and courtesy, to say nothing of the health and safety issues that are involved in that. So this piece of legislation is, as I say, designed entirely to provide an opportunity for trade unions to recruit members and to grow their market share.

One of the interesting aspects of this bill is the so-called 30-day rule that’s being reintroduced, and that’s a rule whereby if a collective arrangement operates in a workplace and a new employee commences employment, maybe on an individual employment agreement, for the first 30 days that new employee will be on the union deal—like it or not, on the union deal. So what is the purpose, one might ask? Well, the purpose, obviously, is so that during that period of time, recruitment can take place, and during those 30 days, an employer will have to provide personal contact details to the trade union of that new employee, unless the employee opts out. Now, that’s a perverse and backwards sort of initiative that was incredibly scathingly criticised by our Privacy Commissioner when he came to the Education and Workforce Committee and said this was poor practice, this was poor privacy practice, and it was contrary to the provisions of the Privacy Act.

And so what’s been the response of this Government to that? Well, the response of this Government to this scathing criticism of the Privacy Commissioner has been in the departmental report back that this piece of legislation will be superior legislation to the Privacy Act. In other words, the Privacy Act will be subordinate legislation to this new industrial relations law that the Government’s pushing through.

This is a bill that removes the ability to take pay deductions out of an employee who’s on a partial strike. Now, we’ve seen a huge increase in the number of partial strikes over the last 12 months, and if there is no financial disincentive to go on strike, then that will simply lead to an obvious conclusion: there will be more partial strikes. And we’ve already seen that when the teachers have been on strike, and as they are going to go on strike, on the so-called mega strike, the super strike, when we’ll have both primary and secondary school teachers on strike next year, they will be losing presumably a day or a week’s pay, or maybe a month if they go on strike for a month—who knows how long they may strike? But they will be losing pay. If they go on a partial strike, like working to roll, or all taking a tea and meal break at exactly the same time, or maybe not wearing the company provided uniform—that kind of partial strike means that there will be no financial disincentive to do a partial strike or to go on a partial strike. So needless to say, there will be lots more of those.

This is a bill that is designed to make recruitment easier. Part of the ability for unions to recruit more easily will be that a union delegate in a workplace will be able to do, in an unquantified, undefined, and unmeasured way, union work—undefined—on the employer’s dime, on the employer’s time, and that is potentially a situation where union work could include things like campaigning. And we all remember that only 12 months or so ago, when the Green Party and the New Zealand First Party and the Labour Party were opposed to free trade and there were—they’ve changed their mind, subsequently, of course, and come around to the right way of thinking about free trade. But what they were opposed to then was the free trade, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, and there were protests and petitions and all sorts of things up and down the countryside. Much of that work, much of that campaigning, was done by trade union representatives and delegates.

Now, this kind of union campaigning, potentially, will be done while on the employer’s time, on the employer’s dime, and I think that’s inherently unfair. But what’s even more unfair is that in this legislation, there is a provision that provides greater statutory protection for a union member than a non-union member. And why might that piece of statutory protection be in there for a union member over the rights and privileges of a non-union member? Well, it’s simply so that a value proposition can be put to a prospective union member, who is going to rightly question when the union representatives come along and stand over them and say, “Look, brother or sister, come and join the union.” And they then say, “Well, why should I join the union? Why should I join your union? It’s going to cost me $500, $600, $700, or $800 a year.” And the union representatives who are lurking around trying to twist the arm of the employee, who may be questioning about why they don’t want to join a union—they will say, “Well, look, if you join the union and you pay the $500, $600, $700, or $800 a year, you will get a greater level of statutory protection under this bill.”

What that means is that we just go back to the bad old days of the 1970s, when we had industrial disruption, a breakdown of economic growth, and a handbrake on the ability of businesses to grow and prosper, and all at a time when we have record low unemployment, when we have record high levels of employment engagement amongst New Zealanders, and when businesses up and down the countryside are saying that the greatest business challenge that they face is actually getting, recruiting, and retaining good staff members. And this bill just puts a handbrake on all that good stuff that helps add value to “New Zealand Incorporated”.

Some of the submissions at select committee were incredibly scary and very worrying on behalf of business. It’s part of the reason that business confidence is stubbornly low and will remain so under this Government. More multi-employer collective agreements, more strikes, more back to the future, and more trade union militancy and strike action will be the single result of this legislation. And I repeat: at the first possible opportunity—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. Your time has expired.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a great pleasure to take a call on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill, and I congratulate my colleague the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway for the fine work he has done, and our coalition partner New Zealand First and our confidence and supply partner the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand for getting the bill to this point.

It is very sad listening to the member Scott Simpson, who’s just resumed his seat, and to hear his speech, because that anti-union rhetoric—the idea that workers in New Zealand should not exercise their freedom of association and their freedom of choice—doesn’t take us back to the 1970s; it takes us back to the days of Sid Holland and the 1950s, and the dreadful scare campaign that the National Party of the 1950s ran about workers belonging to unions. And that’s where the National Party today is, sadly. They are stuck in a time warp of the 1950s. They do not get that in this day and age, workers are capable of making a decision themselves about how they want to advocate for themselves, how they want to join with their workmates and their colleagues, how they want to contribute to productivity growth and productivity improvement with their employer, and how they want to engage with their employer on those things that are going to enhance the business.

You always can tell, actually, where the National Party is at when they trot out the scare campaign over the right of union access to workplaces. Let’s be very clear where that argument comes from: it comes from a view that their workplace, owned by the employer, is solely the private preserve of the employer. It’s not just the workplace and the land and the buildings and the equipment that the employer gets to privately own; it’s the workers who cross its threshold to work there every day. When the National Party trots out an argument that the right of union access to talk to their union members in a workplace, where they have them, is somehow wrong, what they’re actually saying is the employer owns the workers—the employer owns the workers—and the employer should control what information those workers get access to; the employers should control the decisions they get to take. That is how morally bankrupt the National Party today is when it comes to understanding modern workers. New Zealand workers are better than that, and the rest of us have more respect for New Zealand workers and their ability to make decisions for themselves than the National Party has and has ever had.

The modern challenge of economics and economic management today is not just about economic growth and development, and that is vital. That’s why this Government has set out an ambitious path. It’s why the Provincial Growth Fund, stewarded by the Hon Shane Jones, is absolutely vital to get that economic impetus into the regions and to get enhanced economic growth across New Zealand.

But here’s the other thing: there is no point in trying to enlist the support of working New Zealanders into economic growth and development without saying to New Zealand workers, “You are going to share in the gains. And you’re not just going to share in the gains; you’re going to contribute to, and participate in, those gains in a very meaningful way. We are going to protect your rights in the workplace so that productivity enhancements can be negotiated with the employer and made in the workplace and everybody gets to gain.”

In the end, employment law and industrial relations is all about the balance of power in the workplace, and there is an inherent imbalance in the employment relationship. It’s another thing that the National Party of the 1950s and 2018 still does not get: that the basic employment relationship—that statutory law does not change. The implied common law duties inherent in the employment relationship define the imbalance in that relationship: the implied duty of obedience; the implied duty of confidence and fidelity. They are all things that are there to sustain and support the employer and which need to be balanced by good statutory law, and that’s what this law does. This allows workers to organise and to have their rights to organise and to associate with each other protected, because it can be easily eroded.

The member who spoke, Scott Simpson, talked about the outrage that it is that employers will have to allow the representatives of workers who have freely chosen to belong to a union to come on-site, and the outrage that is apparently felt by some employers that a worker representative, elected by the workers in the workplace, might actually be allowed to have some time—and protected time—to do the work of representing those workers.

Actually, if you talk to employers who are used to dealing with unions—and there are many of them—they will tell you that’s actually a good thing. That’s a natural product of workers who are free to choose to belong to a union, electing their representatives and having that representative be a go-between between those workers and the employer, and then call on the aid and the help of the union organiser from off site when that is needed. But good employment relationships don’t get hung up on that stuff. Good employers who want the best for their workers respect the choices that their workers make, including the freedom to choose to belong to a union, and don’t get hung up on that like the National Party. They say, “That’s good. That’s a reflection of the maturing of the workforce that I don’t have to worry about that stuff. If my workers choose to belong to a union, then I owe it to them to respect that choice and I’ll engage with that union. And look, sometimes there will be good days and then we might have a bit of rough and tumble, but, actually, if they are there to advocate for the best for those workers, I will engage on that basis because I want the best for those workers too, and I will engage with their representatives.”

That’s what the modern 21st century employment relationship looks like for those who choose to belong to a union. What could possibly be wrong with that? Well, the problem is you’ve got a party in Opposition that harks back to the 1950s because they are somehow kind of obsessed with what happened then. We just have to get over it.

We have some major challenges in New Zealand economically. We have some major challenges with lifting productivity. We have some major challenges with working with employers to invest in that next generation of capital equipment and new gear that’s going to need new skills but lift productivity and add new value. We’ve got to create an environment where employers can do that with confidence, but not only that, where workers can engage with the processes needed to lift productivity and to embrace new technology and new equipment, knowing that they will share in the gains and that they will share the benefits.

Right around the Western World for the last 25 years, Governments and civil society have been grappling with the issue of how we can make sure we allow economic transformation that frees workers up from doing the mundane, mindless tasks, allows us to take on new technology, embraces the digital transformation, and embraces the wonders of artificial intelligence, but makes sure that workers, whose jobs are going to change and will change, can negotiate the benefits and gains of that for themselves—that they can share in those gains.

That’s the magic we have to create. Good employment law that protects workers and their right to organise and their right to represent creates the conditions for that dialogue to happen. That’s why this is important. And so what if, from time to time, every now and again, the relationship between workers and employers breaks down and it gets a bit mucky, it gets a bit icky? Well, we have institutions to deal with that. That’s why we have obligations to work through those issues, and we have State-backed institutions like the Mediation Service, like the Employment Relations Authority, that allow them, in the rare times when those employment relations fall apart and the wheels fall off, to come back together again and to work those things through with the help of professional input. That’s what modern employment relations look like. There is nothing to fear. The very sad, misguided 1950s campaign that the National Party continues to run is just embarrassing, frankly, and embarrassing for this House. It ought to be embarrassing for them; they think there are a few votes in it, but that’s what they’re getting to.

This bill restores balance. It restores balance to the rights of workers to advocate and negotiate for themselves. It restores balance and those basic protections. The personal grievance regime makes reinstatement the primary remedy when there’s an unjustified dismissal found. Here’s the big irony: the personal grievance jurisdiction started under a National Government. It started in 1970 when a more progressive National Government realised the idea that workers, when they got sacked, had no meaningful remedy because it was way too expensive for them to take a wrongful termination claim, so they created the personal grievance jurisdiction, with a right to reinstatement.

And then the subsequent Labour Government, elected in 1972, created the Industrial Relations Act in 1973 that finessed it, refined it, improved it, and we’ve had reinstatement not only as a remedy but as a primary remedy since then. It’s been fiddled around with under the previous National Government, but putting it back in place is right. If you are sacked for no good reason, and that’s found out and the employer’s got it wrong, but you’ve lost your job, you should get your job back. This bill is about balance—balance in the employment relationship in the modern world—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): The last speaker, Andrew Little, missed out a word in his last sentence. It is about balance: it’s about shifting the balance very much in favour of the unions. And the confusion in that speaker’s speech was very apparent in the opening salvo, when he talked about union members exercising their right of freedom of association, and in the very next breath considering them somehow trapped by their employers. It’s a contradiction because the freedom of association to join a union also includes the freedom of association, particularly in an economy like ours, to choose to leave an employer. But here’s what they’ve been leaving: they’ve been exercising their rights of freedom of association for years and leaving unions.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I apologise to the member. Could the members at the back of the Chamber please take the conversation out into the lobby. Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. They have been exercising their right of association, or non-association, and I know where we’re going with this bill and with the next bill that the Minister will be introducing possibly before Christmas but certainly not too long after it, which will include the Government’s commitments on fair pay agreements, and that is back to the stalking horse of compulsory unionism.

Now, in 1989, I returned from the United Kingdom to spend about five months in Dunedin before returning, and I was a temp worker at one of the State-owned enterprises that Richard Prebble was selling. It was Telecom South, and I was being employed through an employment agency. I wasn’t even an employee of Telecom. The phone rang the day before I started, and the employment agent said, “Now Mike, I’ve some news for you. You’ve got to join a union.” I said, “But I’m not an employee of Telecom.” And she said, “It doesn’t matter. If you want to work in the chief post office in Dunedin, you have to be a member of a union. It doesn’t matter which, just join one.”

Hon Willie Jackson: That’s fair enough.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Oh, and Willie Jackson says, “That’s fair enough.” So now we know where we’re going with this, because for the five months that I was at Telecom I was a member of the Public Service Association, and that was the last time. And Mr Jackson is absolutely right: that is where we’re heading.

If there’s any doubt, it comes from the New Zealand Labour Party’s policy platform that they passed at their national conference in Christchurch in 2013. It was signed off by David Parker as deputy leader of the party and as chair of the policy council. Now, remember, in the Labour Party, when the party speaks, the caucus has to comply. It says here, “The Platform is binding on the Party, including the Caucus. … the manifesto must be consistent with [these] provisions”—and these are the provisions based on the founding principle of democratic socialism. It says that equality of opportunity is not enough for the Labour Party; equality of outcomes is. In respect of employment relations, it says, “Labour is fundamentally committed to collective rights and responsibilities”—not to freedom of choice; not to freedom of association. The fundamental principle is collective responsibility whether one likes it or not, and in their workplace relations they were going to promote legislation that promotes collective bargaining, protects minimum standards, and guarantees unions a voice.

Does that sound familiar—because it’s in the preamble to this bill. It’s in the very purpose of this bill. The purpose of the bill is not freedom of association, freedom of choice; it’s collective bargaining at all costs. This is step one. We’re going a lot further. I don’t even hear a retort. This is chapter and verse. And why do we know this? It’s because in 2013 the Labour Party was so weak that they were propped up entirely by the union movement. And this is payback. So when I, as Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, talked about—

Hon Willie Jackson: We don’t hate the unions like you.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —every policy change—well, the member suggests I hate the unions. That’s not true, because I’m fundamentally lazy as an employer, and I had a very good working relationship with the nurses’ union of which the Minister used to be an employee, because it helped me out. It helped me negotiate several hundred agreements in one, but if any one of them wanted to go into an individual agreement, they were free to do so.

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Still are.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: And, indeed, the 30-day—well, the Minister says they still are, and yet in the same breath as “freedom of association”, the Minister of Justice talks about the 30-day rule being changed. At the moment, the employer has an obligation to say, “Here is the collective agreement. Here are the contact details for the union delegate. Here’s how to get in touch with them.” But now that’s not possible. It’s not possible for an employee on day one to say, “Thanks very much. I don’t want to be part of that.” For the first 30 days of their employment, they have no choice but to be part of the terms and conditions.

There’s Mr Jackson nodding. I haven’t got it wrong. And how is that related to the principle of freedom of association? This is the stalking horse, this bit: the rights of union access, the responsibility, the requirement to conclude collective bargaining is all part of the precondition of a fair pay agreement which is coming to a workplace near you.

Hon Willie Jackson: We don’t hate the unions.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Now, a sector that contains—the member keeps saying it. What I hate, Mr Jackson, is people being told what to do, when to do it. They have the freedom to associate, to bargain, and if they choose to join a union, good on them, I say. But they should not be compelled to, and that’s where we are heading.

I want the Minister just to explain, because when he talks about the partial strikes, which are part of this bill, he always refers to things like working to rule and wearing red T-shirts. I want the Minister to nod or shake his head whether he believes that the current industrial action being undertaken by the midwives, where in each shift two hours is taken as a strike action, would meet the definition of a partial strike, because it strikes me—pardon the pun—that it would. The Minister isn’t even going to respond, so I’ll take that as a yes. So forget the T-shirts. Forget the work to rule. We have widespread industrial action in the health sector at the moment, and the midwives are taking two hours off several times between 22 November and tomorrow. When this bill is passed, who pays for that strike? The consequence of strike action is that it should be a sacrifice for a greater good. There’s now the goal of a greater good but no sacrifice.

My prediction is that the more than a million days of work lost in 1986, which was the peak of our industrial action in my working life, will come back very quickly, but it will come back in a surreptitious way. There won’t be full strikes. There will be a massive hit on this economy’s productivity by a series of partial strikes that the midwives are embarking on right now—and fair enough to them; good on them. But they did that knowing that it would come at a personal cost. In the future, it will come at no cost to anybody but the employers. And remember we’re talking about flexibility, freedom of association, freedom of choice. Well, the employers will have no choice but to take that and pay for it, and that will be the future of industrial action in this country.

The sad thing is that so much of this is unnecessary. If we take the flexible rest and meal breaks provisions, there were many employers around the country who were breaking the law prior to the change. I’ve described the hospital I ran, the night shift nurses, the staff that, for their own choice and for school arrangements or parenting responsibilities, wanted to forgo a rest or meal break. They’re now no longer able to do that. The Dunedin Airport air traffic controller—sole charge—

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Read the bill.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —now not able to be done in law any more, once this bill is passed. The Minister says, “Read the bill.” It’s a kind of “Oh, trust us. Everything will be fine.” And yet the very oxymoron there is the terrible lack of trust in this, and it’s a lack of trust in an employer group to do the right thing. I know that the overwhelming majority of employers in this country do the responsible thing. There are a few bad eggs, and that’s why we worked very hard to increase the sanctions on non-compliance with employment and immigration law. I stand very proudly beside the fact that every single member of this House voted in favour of legislation to get rid of zero-hour contracts, and good riddance to them. But this is a step far too far. It has no fairness for employers—or employees, for that matter, who want that freedom of association—far less flexibility, and we’ll see whether it’s a safety issue as well. But I stress: this is the first, the first of a series of initiatives that is going to take us far, far back to a place we shouldn’t be going in a modern and flexible economy.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to stand on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call in the third and final reading of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. I’ve been sitting here, quietly reflecting on some of the comments that have been made, and I think I might start my contribution from the back and work my way to the front, because some of the comments that Mr Woodhouse has made in relation to the flexibility around meal breaks, I think, are a good place to start.

I was part of the last Government when we put through some pretty hefty changes to the Health and Safety in Employment Act to make workplaces more safe and to ensure that workers that were going to put themselves in harm’s way came home safely at the end of a day of work or at the end of a week of work. Then, after we completed that monumental piece of legislation, it was in only a matter of months before the National Party, the then Government, stripped away the rights of those meal breaks, and I remember putting a contribution in this House, saying, “Oh, look, it’s dinner time.” In fact, I spoke just before six o’clock, and the bell went mid-contribution. I said, “Well, isn’t it great that we can actually take the time out to go and have a rest break, to go and refresh ourselves, and get ourselves back?”—and we have a sedentary job; it’s hardly a dangerous job, sitting here, pushing a few pens around, and chastising the lacklustre Opposition.

What we had here in the example that was given was in relation to air traffic controllers who now don’t have that flexibility to not take a break. That’s a perfect example, because those people who have that position aren’t necessarily putting themselves personally in harm’s way; what they are doing is potentially putting tens of thousands of people’s lives at risk by not taking those scheduled meal breaks. This legislation that we’re putting through today does not stop those employers from organising and structuring those meal breaks to ensure that the employees can take scheduled meal breaks at all, but it ensures that they have to, within the rules and confines of their obligations as an employer, ensure that those workers do take those scheduled meal breaks. There are some schedules there that do point out some of those jobs that need that flexibility, where meal breaks may not be quite appropriate, and so that flexibility is there, but to have meal breaks ensured—that they are taken—is absolutely critical to ensure we have a very safe and healthy working environment.

Now, I’m going to go back to the start of my contribution, where, just over a year ago, I had the great pleasure of standing with my caucus before the announcement of which parties we were going to coalesce with to make this Government. Everybody was sitting there waiting to hear the words from the Rt Hon Winston Peters—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I’m going to call the member back to the bill. He’s spent a few minutes talking about other matters, a little bit about the bill, and now he’s traversing some other historical context. So let’s come back to the substance of the bill as it was reported back to the House after the committee of the whole House. Thank you.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: The substance is in relation to giving this Government a face for capitalism. So to do that we have to build our economy and build our society from the bottom up, something that hasn’t been done for a long time. To build our economy from the bottom up is to ensure that the most vulnerable people in our society are looked after. Those people are our workers—largely the unskilled, uneducated, workforce—who are on low and minimum wages, who can sometimes be taken advantage of. This bill does do that. This gives capitalism a face. This provides for those workers who aren’t as fortunate as some of those other workers we have.

Now, getting the balance right over the last 12 months—and it was, literally, a week before we broke for Christmas that we sat down and we discussed what the 100-day plan was going to look like for a brand new coalition Government—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): No. Come back to the substance of the bill. I’m sorry. A third reading debate—

Dan Bidois: He hasn’t read the bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): —Order!—is often relied upon by the judiciary to establish the intent of this Parliament. I would like you to come back to the substance of the bill. Thank you.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: As I was saying, the substance of the bill—

Andrew Falloon: Don’t rely on Clayton Mitchell.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!

CLAYTON MITCHELL: —then ensures that we have a multi-employer collective agreement that we have the ability for businesses to opt out of. Whilst we are trying to maintain a Government that is looking after the people at the bottom, building our economy from the bottom up, sharing that wealth through those workers—which is part of the bill—I have to say that this is an important part. We do not want to see the cost structures of our larger cities and centres around the country imposing those costs on to our regions and our businesses in the provinces. To enable the multi-employer collective agreement to be opted out of by those businesses after they have engaged in meaningful discussion to try the best that they possibly can to come to an agreement around a MECA—a multi-employment collective agreement—then that, to us, is a very positive outcome.

Another very important part of the bill, and I’ve touched on a couple of points already, is to do with the access to workplaces. We have heard a lot of fearmongering from both Michael Woodhouse and, of course, Scott Simpson in relation to unfettered access to workplaces. That’s not the case. For those workplaces where they are part of a MECA—a multi-employment collective agreement—those union delegates do have access to those workplaces to ensure that the work conditions that they are in are actually safe and that they are within the rules and regulations of what constitutes a safe and viable workplace. But where there isn’t a MECA, those delegates must go through the current process and practice of giving fair and reasonable notice. But even if there is a multi-employer collective agreement in place, the union members still must fit the test of what is fair and reasonable as far as access goes. They can’t show up at midnight and demand to speak to people. It’s not the fearmongering that has been pushed by the National Party; it is, actually, something quite different. So we believe that getting that balance right is something that we are very, very conscious of, and we have given it a lot of thought to ensure that that actually happens.

The public sector and the private sector are two areas that we are aware of where we have to get that balance right too. We understand that the strike action that we’ve seen over the past 12 months is directly a result of the settings of the previous Government, which we want to get right. And, yes, we have had nurses striking, and we’ve had teachers striking—in fact, my kids love it when the teachers strike, to be honest. When people are talking doom and gloom, it’s great to see some people in our society very, very pleased about it. But I have to say that that is one way of being heard, and if you can have a partial strike to get your point across—and the member across the House there was talking about taking hours off in a day. Well that, to me, is strike action. Partial striking is where you are doing very subtle things to get your point across, like wearing a T-shirt. That is about ensuring we have good productivity to ensure that our businesses can operate fairly. What we’ve got to make sure of is that we have an environment—a working environment, a business environment—that grows productivity and shares wealth amongst all those people—the businesses and the employers and the employees—fairly and equally. And that is something where I believe we have got that balance right.

We are going down a very good path when it comes to the 90-day work trials. This is something that, in the very early stages, myself and Iain Lees-Galloway and a number of officials sat around the table to discuss. I have had the pleasure myself of being in business for 25 years and understand that businesses are looking for good employees and are prepared to spend the money to upskill them to make sure that they can actually grow with them. As their skills increase, of course, so do the conditions that they work within—their pay conditions increase, and other perks come along the way: increases in time off and holidays, etc.

It’s not fair to suggest that employers use the 90-day work trials to get rid of staff—to fire at will, as I’ve had some people say to me. It’s actually a way to ensure you have the right balance. The right balance for us is ensuring that the person is a good fit for the environment that they work in. Now, currently, a small to medium sized enterprise in New Zealand is “under 20 employees”. Now, that, to me, I think, and New Zealand First believes, is something that we need to look at as a Government to see where that sits internationally. But the people in those businesses that are smaller don’t have the same sorts of resourcing that larger companies have. They don’t have the HR facilities available to them, and they don’t have the smaller work groups inside their businesses where those people who might not necessarily fit can be relocated to be in a more suitable working environment. It’s not about the skill set; it’s actually about finding the employees who fit with what we, as employers, are trying to do.

So we commend this bill to the House. We think it’s a great balance. We are very, very proud to be here today to announce this, and I believe we are much better off as a country now that this bill has gone through all three stages in the House.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Well, the bill hasn’t quite gone through all stages, and those of us on the Opposition benches still have some comments to make about this bill before it unfortunately passes into law.

I’d like to make a few general comments, if I may, before I have a look at some of the aspects of this bill. The overarching theme that I have picked up throughout the debates on this bill, particularly the committee stage and the second reading, is that this is an “us and them” piece of legislation. It’s not an “us and them” as in the Government and the Opposition; it’s a little bit an “us and them” within the Government, however. So it’s a little bit how the union-backed Labour Party brought the bill to the House in January and had its wings severely clipped by both the Green Party and New Zealand First on the way through, so that a number of their particularly egregious provisions have been moderated, which has got to be a good thing.

But the “us and them” aspect is mostly about pitching employer against employee. All the language in the bill and all the language coming from the various members, the various parts of this Labour-led Government, is all about “employers are bad and workers are good”. It’s a little interesting, perhaps, to hear members on that side of the House talking in terms which I recall from when I was a young person and when I was a child. This truly is an attitude that is flowing back to us from decades ago, where the workers are good and the employers are bad.

But one also has to remember this: only 17 percent of people who work—and I’m not going to call them “workers”—in New Zealand belong to a union. They do that by choice, because they can. They do have freedom of association, as my colleague Mike Woodhouse pointed out in his intervention. People who work in New Zealand, indeed, do have a choice, and 83 percent of them choose to have a great relationship with their employer, with full protections should that relationship break down—let’s not pretend that there aren’t good protections in the law already—but choose not to become part of a union. That is a problem for the Labour Party, and less of a problem but still a problem for the Green Party and for New Zealand First, because they rely on unions for party donations and support at election time.

Let’s not gild this in any other way. The purpose of the bill, and in the purpose statement—and I would find it if it didn’t take too long. Here we are: “to promote and strengthen collective bargaining and union rights in the workplace.” That is the purpose of this bill, so let’s draw the curtains aside on this. This is about building on—hopefully, as far as the Government are concerned—that 17 percent membership of unions, because membership is money.

If there’s one thing that the Government members are not so good at doing, it’s getting the support of wider New Zealand, so they must turn to support from the unions. If you want to see evidence of that beyond the purpose statement of this bill, one only needs to have a look at the 30-day rule, whereby if there is a multi-employer collective agreement in place and a new employee comes on board this place of work, they are regarded, for the first 30 days, as being a member of that union. So for those 83 percent of people who work in New Zealand who aren’t union members, they don’t get freedom of association—oh no. They don’t get freedom of association, because they are compelled and regarded and legislated as being part of that union until they opt out of that relationship.

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Wrong.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: I have read the bill and it is in the bill.

But even more egregious than that—even more egregious than that—is their employer is compelled to pass over their private information to the union. Why? Why would the union want that private information? Well, it’s pretty obvious, and that is to assist them in their recruitment drive so that the real purpose of this bill is realised, and that is to grow union numbers, because at the moment, they’re failing. Unions are failing. They come back to us from the 1940s and the 1950s and the 1960s with their “us and them” language. They’re failing, because only 17 percent of people who work in New Zealand choose to become part of a union, so they’ve got to legislate to grow their membership.

So this has got nothing about freedom of association in the workplace and fairness to people in the workplace; this has got every single thing in it which is about growing funds for the Labour Party and growing union membership.

Michael Wood: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would ask you to consider whether it is orderly for a member to suggest that other members of this House are passing legislation in order to procure money for their party.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I have been listening very closely—I thank the member for that—and I’ve been reviewing Speakers’ Rulings, particularly on page 49, and I know previous presiding officers have ruled on this. I’ve been listening very carefully to this debate, and the member has come close, and I think perhaps is slipping over the line of what is actually appropriate. I direct you to Speakers’ ruling 49/1, where it’s not right to suggest that the Government is acting under improper motives. Also, being unduly influenced is one thing, but, actually, when you’re talking about the payment to a Government, that is actually slipping over the line. So I think you’re skating very close. I just ask the member to stay within the bounds of what is proper and within Speakers’ rulings and Standing Orders. Thank you.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I want to move now to one provision in this bill which National can applaud and support, and thank New Zealand First for making sure that this provision was retained in the bill, and that is the provision of the 90-day trial period for businesses with employees of 20 and under. We would have preferred, and our position would be, that the 90-day trial would apply to all business, but none the less it is a true back-down on behalf of the Labour Party because some grunt was exercised by New Zealand First.

It is a back-down for them. It must be embarrassing for them, and I acknowledge that, but none the less what the 90-day trial continues to do and will continue to do is allow young people—and I have heard the word “vulnerable worker” told at us a number of times in this debate. What this 90-day trial, which Labour didn’t want in the bill—they were trying to legislate it out of the legislation, but it is exactly what is allowing a number of young and not-so-young New Zealanders to be given a chance. It has allowed a number of young New Zealanders to get in the door of employment and have a chance to prove themselves. It has proven to be hugely successful. I was dismayed to hear the Minister last night—the union organiser now Minister—[Bell rung]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise—I should’ve pushed the button earlier. I apologise.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: —oh, thank you—telling the House that there was no evidence of the benefit of the 90-day trial. I’m sorry—each and every one of us in our own communities throughout New Zealand has heard story after story after story from employees and those people who have worked for them about what a benefit giving someone a go has been. If it’s in regard to vulnerable workers, that is exactly why the National Government brought in the 90-day trial. So that is the one piece in this legislation that we can support.

We cannot support and will not support the measures in this bill which put a handbrake on productivity, which put a handbrake on small business and small to medium sized enterprises and large business all throughout this country. There is a reason for business confidence tanking. One of the main reasons around that is the added compliance costs, the added compliance requirements that will be brought on business, together with the uncertainty about what’s coming next from this Government. That is causing business in New Zealand to lose confidence in this Government.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s with pleasure that I rise to take a call on behalf of the Green Party at the third reading of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. It’s been a bit of a tumultuous journey to get to this third reading, and the mismatch between the actual legislation and what we’ve been hearing from the Opposition that this legislation does is as wide as the gulf between the parties in this House, it seems to me.

Before I get into some of the detail of the bill, I do just want to address one of the points around how this bill is about improving collective bargaining and union access. That’s true, and I will make no apology for that. I hear from the Opposition the view that this is for the benefit of the union, as if the unions are an institution separate from people in their workplaces who are trying to get by. That suggests to me that the members in the Opposition actually may not have been members of a union and may not have seen the benefits of coming together with their colleagues and actually considering how to create a productive, thriving, healthy workplace. That’s been my experience being a member of a union, where we’ve made significant changes and improved productivity in our workplace by coming together and having those discussions. The times where I’ve been an employer, I’ve taken huge benefit from my staff being able to provide me with the information and provide a check on my management practice through those conversations in union with their colleagues.

So the evidence is pretty strong around the benefits of unions, and that’s domestic evidence—it’s also international evidence—that it’s a benefit to those workplaces and productivity, but also that coming together with your colleagues to be able to negotiate for pay and health and safety is actually a really key factor in reducing inequality. The International Monetary Fund, who’s a conservative organisation—they’ve acknowledged that. So this isn’t about going back to some historic time of conflict; this is actually about bringing people together in union. That’s not about conflict; that’s actually about trying to create some harmony in our workplaces for the majority of the people in those workplaces.

I do just want to acknowledge that very recently, the New Zealander of the Year Kristine Bartlett—this is a woman who fought and put equal pay back on the table for this country through her union. That wouldn’t—and she says it continually—have happened without the support of her union. Coming together with others, and that union access, was a really significant issue for those caregivers, in being able to get others involved in that case. So it’s really pleasing to see an improvement in the ability for union organisers to be able to start those conversations in workplaces where they haven’t known about unions.

Actually, a lot of our young people in this country don’t really know what unions are, and the fewer members that we’ve had, the harder it has been to have that conversation. While union rates are going up, which is contrary to what the previous speaker, Jacqui Dean, said, that’s on the back of these amazing examples of what joining a union can deliver for those workers but also us as a country. Actually, we know that we need to restore some balance here, that it’s been tipped against colleagues being able to come together and support each other and bargain for decent conditions.

One of the other points I would like to challenge where there’s been some misinformation has been the point that this legislation treats employers as if they’re all bad and we can’t trust them. Actually, I challenge that. I do not see that in this legislation at all. In fact, to my mind, the balance is still a little towards a distrust of the unions and working people. In the provisions around passing on of information about the union, we’ve had to build in here an ability for the employer to check that information, which is coming from an assumption that, actually, they’re not going to trust them, that they would be trying to do something that’s dodgy through that process, as opposed to just letting people know the benefits of joining a union. So I challenge that assumption or assertion as well.

We’ve been hearing that this bill is also about restoring minimum standards—so that’s around rest and meal breaks. It’s been annoying for me—I’ll be upfront—sitting and listening to the Opposition assert that now nobody will be able to have an arrangement with their employer to take their rest and meal breaks when it suits them, and that it will remove flexibility for working families in terms of arrangements for their children, when that is very, very clear in the legislation, that it’s possible to have an arrangement between the employer and the employee of when those breaks are taken. It’s very, very clear, and if the Opposition hasn’t gone to the effort of reading the legislation, then I think we’re in trouble, and they really do need to question their role in this House.

I also want to point out that we’ve been hearing as well that there will be no choice for people around actually being pushed on to a collective rather than an individual contract. They’ll get the conditions of a collective, but until they choose to join the collective, they will not be on a collective. It’s just to give people the experience of the conditions that they might get from joining together with their colleagues. They are different things, and this bill does not remove people’s agency at all. It, in fact, enables people to have more choices and to know what their choices are.

There’s another point in the bill I want to touch on briefly that hasn’t particularly been talked about, which is that the bill removes an exclusion for employers with fewer than 20 employees when there’s a business transfer—so when a business sells to somebody else, that their staff will now have the option to be employed by the new employer. This is a really, really important provision, particularly for women and Māori and Pacific workers, who are most affected by these changes in ownership of businesses. This was something where New Zealand, under the last Government—they were telling the UN that they’d done really great work around providing this protection, and they didn’t mention that they’d created an exclusion for businesses with fewer than 20 workers. So really, it did look to me, when I was looking at that, that they were misleading the United Nations on that. It is a very important point around the security, particularly for women workers. So it’s great to see that addressed in this legislation.

I also want to just finally touch on the 90-day rule provisions in this bill. It is a compromise for the Green Party. We’re willing to see it move forward, because it is progress for those who are on a collective contract, but really the idea that nobody would give anyone a chance, particularly if they were Māori or a woman or young, unless there was the ability to fire them without any excuse whatsoever is, frankly, ridiculous and, I would argue, offensive.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to bring this debate back to the House today, back to reality, and to oppose with vigour the third reading of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill.

I oppose this bill because this is a bad bill. It’s a bill that is all about the unions. It’s very little about the workers, in fact. It’s going to cost the economy. It’s going to cost small business and large business. It’s going to cost opportunities for our young and for people who want to get ahead. And it’s also pitting employers against employees, taking us back to the 1970s, a period where it was about us and them. So that is why we oppose the Employment Relations Amendment Bill.

We have one of the best and most efficient labour markets in the developed world. We have the sixth-best relations between labour and employment relations, according to the World Economic Forum. We have a labour market that’s producing great results, and great results that this Government’s trumpeting: 3.9 percent unemployment, record high labour-force participation rates. Now, does that say that we need to change this labour market? Absolutely not. And the principles of our efficient, effective world-class labour market are very clear: it’s about good faith and it’s about mutual respect between the employer and the employees. And most employers are good employers in New Zealand. They take care of their workers, they pay them well, they are flexible with their working arrangements, and that is what we heard in the submissions that were submitted from the business community, but also that’s what we heard from this side of the House yesterday in the committee stage.

I’m very proud to see the colleagues that I have, many of whom have been employers, who have been in a position to offer people an opportunity to get ahead, to make them better off, and to give them the flexibility that they want. So we on this side of the House are very clear that it’s about the mutual respect between employers and employees. I just think we need to stop bashing businesses as this evil group in society that just wants to pin down the workers, that wants to extract as much value, because that is a shame for the whole business community in New Zealand. A lot of people, including my own parents, are hard-working small-business owners. My dad’s a truck driver and my mum owns a small sales business.

DAN BIDOIS: That is disrespectful to them, who are paying their workers well and want to get ahead for that.

That is why union membership is at an all-time low. Despite what they’re saying, if you look at the long-run trend of union membership from 1991 to 2017, we see that union membership has declined from 34 percent of the workforce down to—guess what?—17 percent. That trend reflects the global trend. Unions across the world are declining, and the real fact that this Government doesn’t want to acknowledge is that there is no relationship at all between union power and the level of economic development in a country—the level of economic prosperity in a country.

I want to acknowledge the Minister, Andrew Little, because he did raise a really good intellectual point about today’s modern challenge. I want to propose an alternative to what he proposed and to the modern challenge. The modern challenge that we face today as a country—and we do face some serious challenges with respect to our workforce—is to empower our workers, is to upskill the workforce so that they can get their fair share, and it’s to work in partnership between employers and employees in order to make sure we’re all better off. That is, I think, today, the modern challenge, and that is how we on this side of the House would be addressing that challenge.

Now, I just want to go into some of the specifics today about this bill and why we are opposing it. So I want to talk about the changes that are on the way for small and large businesses and the impacts that this is going to have on our economy. First, on the 90-day trials, what we’re going to see is fewer opportunities to take on workers in the business world. Next, we’ve got unfettered access to the workplace for—let me explain this—workforces and employers where there is a collective agreement or where they are bargaining for a collective agreement. That is going to, again, pin the employer against the employee, and it’s going to create a hostile environment, and that’s not the type of environment we on this side of the House want to see.

Third is around the paid time off for union workers. Now, this is just going to add on extra costs to business, because guess what? This all flows through to lost productivity in the workforce. So that is going to add on extra cost to business, and even though it’s reasonable, as it’s defined in the bill, that’s still very vague, and what we’re going to find is far more higher costs to business.

We’ve got another provision in the bill around the duty to conclude the multi-employer collective agreement (MECA). And, yes, you know, there’s been a small win from the New Zealand First Party that you can get out of these MECAs based on reasonable grounds. But what we raised here today and yesterday in the speeches is that that is still far too loose and vague of a definition. What are these MECAs going to actually mean for the hard-working businesses of New Zealand? It’s just going to add on more costs. It’s going to make sure that it takes choices away from businesses and away from employees—and not to talk about commercial sensitivity. We haven’t actually talked about that much in the House, that employers in the same sector are going to be exposed from commercially sensitive information.

Continuing on to the other points, we’ve got rest and meal breaks, which we’ve debated quite heavily in this House in the last few days. Now, no one wants a case where we’re not having rest and meal breaks in the workplace. What we’re calling for is a degree of flexibility, and it’s that flexibility that is going to create a thriving, dynamic, and productive economy.

Finally, on the reinstatement as the primary remedy for any disputes, and we’ve talked about this very loud and clear. There are many cases where reinstatement is just not acceptable—the workplace relationship has broken down—and we think that there needs to be much more flexibility on the table for that. So here, that is, in a nutshell, some of the changes that are on the way to New Zealand businesses. And now New Zealand First will sit here and they’ll say, “Well, yes, we’ve extracted some value from this bill.” And I saw Mr Clayton Mitchell debate in the House today. I don’t think he’s even read the bill. It was an appalling speech. He barely spent any time in the House today talking about the bill that’s before the House. So, quite frankly, New Zealand First got diddly squat out of their negotiations on this employment bill, and it’s really taking us back.

We’ve heard the Minister talk about “It’s taking us back to the 1950s.” We’ve heard another one talk about “It’s taking us back to the 1960s and 1970s.” I want to talk about the 2050s and the type of New Zealand that we want to live in in the 2050s, where our employment relationship is a flexible relationship, where it’s worker-centric not union-centric, and where it’s about a partnership between private enterprise and employers and, of course, employees. That is the type of vision that we have in the National Party for the future of employment relations, and I cannot wait until the day that we get back into office and we’re going to repeal this law by to and fro and work to that vision. So we will oppose this bill with much rigour in the House. Thank you.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): After that speech that member should be removed from the Māori nation. It was a disgraceful speech. The Māori nation—I can say; I got a call while he was talking—are ashamed of him. Māori have been such a—he knows this. He’s a disgrace to the Bidois name, too.

Barbara Kuriger: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. At one point the member—through our member’s speech—talked about his parents disowning him, and now he’s talking about Māoridom disowning him, and I think that’s a step too far.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I think it’s unhelpful for the Hon Willie Jackson to make such statements. I don’t think it is actually out of order; however, it is unhelpful, and I encourage him to speak directly to the bill from now on.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and I’ll take your advice on that.

I’m talking about this bill, though, because this is a bill where Māori will benefit. This is a bill where workers will benefit. And I have to say, I feel embarrassed and ashamed when I hear some of the speeches from the National Party today, because they are attacking good people in this country. Shocking speeches are coming across, where they’re trampling on workers’ rights. I have to say today: we believe in work, we believe in dignified work, and I think this bill gives us an opportunity to restore the balance. When I hear the rubbish, the nonsense, coming from Mr Bidois, it really is a worry—it really is a worry, because he should know better. Māori have benefited so much off unions—so much. And I stand today and I’ll say: I support unions. And we’re not embarrassed by that. If the bill—and I think it does—supports a lot of union rights, then that’s fabulous. There’s nothing to apologise about. It is a—

Hon Alfred Ngaro: John Tamihere doesn’t support them.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Who cares about John Tamihere? You know that. Who cares about him? Anti-union—he should join the National Party, that bloke. But in some areas, and Mr Bidois was talking about it—meal breaks, for instance. I am so pleased that workers are allowed to have meal breaks—structured meal breaks. Under the previous Government, they didn’t know whether they were coming or going. Dan Bidois would have had them starving all day. We know this for a fact. The National Party don’t care about workers getting regular meal breaks. And it falls very much into our health and safety area. We must have strong and healthy workers who have regular breaks. I’m proud that we have incorporated that into this bill.

In terms of the 90-day trial period, again, we’ve worked well with New Zealand First on this. There’s no back-down. This is what Government’s all about. This is about compromise. And I understand some of the concerns for the smaller employers. So the 90-day arrangement that we have now fits nicely. I for one am tired, as are other people here who’ve worked in the unions, of watching rogue employers knocking off workers, getting rid of workers, at 89 days—using and utilising workers. That’s not the New Zealand workplace that I was brought up in. We have to give these workers security. We have to give them safety. We don’t want them to be on a National Party agenda. We don’t want them to be on Dan Bidois’ agenda, where they don’t know if they’ve got work the next day or the next week—

Hon Member: Let them choose.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: No, we don’t want it like that. We want them to have some security. So we’ll look after the smaller employers. We worked with New Zealand First on this. I’m very pleased with the compromise. The small employers, who don’t have the resources that the big employers have—and it’s a good compromise where we have employers with under 20 workers, and they have an exemption in this area. But we will protect and look after workers, unlike the Opposition on the other side.

Can I say I’m particularly pleased with reinstatement being restored as the primary remedy for an unfair dismissal. Again, Mr Bidois touched on this. That is the way to go. I was a union official for many years, and I started to get a little dismayed that we were going down the track that when someone was unjustifiably dismissed, we would say “Oh, you can have $2,000 or $3,000.” That’s not the way to go. What our people want is their jobs back. They want their jobs back. So restoring that as a primary remedy—you need to listen to this, Mr Bidois; we might take you back into the Māori nation if you listen properly—is the way to go, because it gives workers security. When a worker is unjustifiably dismissed, they deserve their job back.

So I commend Iain Lees-Galloway and particularly Jan Tinetti, who’s made a great contribution and—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member’s—[Interruption] Order! I call Denise Lee—five minutes.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): What an extraordinary contribution from the Hon Willie Jackson. The first part of that reference to his name I struggle to endorse, given that he has supposed to speak on behalf of the Māori nation in reference to my colleague Dan Bidois, who gave an excellent contribution, and, as our chief whip referred to, referred to his own family. And what do we get from the other side of the House? Mr Willie Jackson, you do not have the mandate to speak on behalf of the Māori nation. You know it and we know it.

Now, I’m going to get on to the bill, unlike the previous member’s contribution. Industries are evolving, and, as my fantastic colleague Dan Bidois made reference to, there’s an evolution and there is a different set of expectations coming to our workforce. Basically, we’re modernising. We’re looking at global expectations, global examples, and we know that we need the flexibility in our labour, in our workforce, to respond to changing needs.

Now, for those of us that sat through hours and hours and hours of submissions on this bill as I and others did, unlike the Hon Willie Jackson, that’s exactly what we heard. Two hundred and forty-nine people opposed this bill, and dozens and dozens and dozens of them appeared before us at the Education and Workforce Committee. What we heard from them is that this bill goes back to a rigid and an outdated system encouraging business to take a risk-averse approach to hiring staff. It’s as simple as that: a risk-averse approach to hiring staff. It takes away people’s ability to decide for themselves what’s best for themselves. Now, how do I know that? Again, it’s because I listened to them in select committee—hours and hours.

When I think about the impact on businesses, I can’t help but think about my particular area in the electorate of Maungakiekie and specifically the Penrose business industrial area. Now, I’d like to think I have something substantive to say in that regard, because Penrose business area is the largest industrial area in the country. And it was only a few weeks ago that I was speaking, along with a Labour Party member, in a business forum, and we heard very clearly—and she would have, too—businesses speak up on the coming impact of this very legislation that’s about to be signed off in a few minutes. What they are saying is that in this legislation, not only has the Government disregarded the impact on them as businesses but also the impact on individual people, on individual employees, and, in fact, also the wider social impact of this particular bill.

Now, here are a few examples of why I say there’ll be wider social impact. Under this legislation, all new employees who are employed will be required to be employed under terms and conditions of the collective agreement for their first 30 days on the job, even if they’re not part of a union and they never intend to be. And then, if they don’t want to be part of that collective agreement, they’ve got to be part of it anyway. What sort of system is that?

Kieran McAnulty: A good one.

DENISE LEE: No, it’s not a good one. Who are we to tell people, Mr McAnulty, that they can’t choose what works best for them? Why should they be forced, Mr McAnulty, to work under conditions that may not be suitable for them or their needs or their family needs?

My colleagues have spoken extensively about the removal of 90 days. Well, we heard from people in select committee—here’s a good example: Federated Farmers. They have taken on high-risk employees that have come out of ex-prison pathway schemes. These people are living on site in farming communities, and they’ve had to take risks of them living on site in a farm. We heard from them that they will not take that risk if the 90-day rule is not in place. They told us that very specifically.

This bill is pragmatic-poor—it’s not pragmatic at all. This is a handbrake on business. This country deserves better, and we will repeal all that is within this bill the moment we become Government in 2020.

MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Look, I can understand and I completely agree with the member Denise Lee that there’s some apprehension from some businesses all through the country, but that’s because they’ve had the Scott Simpson scaremongering sideshow go all through New Zealand and tell completely the wrong information about what this bill does.

I know the member Denise Lee asked the question about the 30 days, and I can actually clarify. I have done this a few times now with businesses, with employer representation, and with chambers of commerce, and they’ve all said, “Oh, now I understand what this bill does. That was never told to me when the National Party representatives came to talk to me.”

What the 30 days does is it covers new employees under an existing collective agreement. Now, listen up, because you might learn something. What happens is that the terms and conditions from a collective agreement are extended to new employees so that the employer cannot offer anything less. What happens when you offer anything less to a new employee? You are eroding the collective agreement’s terms and conditions. So, ultimately, as more and more people are joining on an inferior contract—an individual contract—that collective agreement becomes less valuable.

The problem is that nobody in this House would have received their sick leave provisions, received their holiday provisions, received a 40-hour working week, or received weekends without unions. Unions got the members in this House all of those provisions. So stop slagging off unions, because they are actually holding the line not only for their members but for all of New Zealand and all workers.

It’s a huge privilege to be speaking on this bill. I was a law student during the time of the undermining changes the National Government made between 2010 and 2015. I would never have dreamt that I would be standing here in this House one day to support a bill that is reversing all of those changes. Nine years of eroding employment conditions, and today we’re seeing the end of it.

We’ve heard from the other side that the payoff, evidently, has something to do with the increase of jobs. It’s mentioned a few times. “Look at our employment. Look at how many jobs there are.” It’s not just about the amount of jobs; it’s about the quality of the jobs. We don’t actually want people to have insecure, part-time, low-paid jobs. Exactly as my colleague Jan Tinetti points out, it’s about conditions. We don’t want low-paid, part-time, insecure jobs. We need to improve the quality and the wage level of that work, and that is exactly what this bill is doing. This bill is tackling the collective bargaining which will strengthen the union rights in the workplace.

Now, when these changes were made, the National Government really undermined collective bargaining, and you have to wonder why they actually did that. Well, they did it because that way employers were allowed to avoid collective bargaining, and collective bargaining lifts wages and conditions. So the result of the changes that they made over those years was actually a reduction of pay and conditions for all of our workers. “Workers” is not a dirty word. I think it was Jacqui Dean who said, “Oh, I’m not going to say the word ‘workers.’” These are hard-working, decent people putting in a fair day’s work, and they should be getting a fair day’s pay, and that’s what this bill is doing.

Over the years, we’ve seen less of a share of the growth in our economy go to working people. At the moment, I think it sits at about 40 percent. That’s roughly 20 percent less than those dreadful 1970s that the other side is talking about. Minister Iain Lees-Galloway mentioned it already: 1 percent—1 percent only—of people on collective agreements did not get a pay increase last year. That is versus 45 percent of people on non-collective agreements, who missed out on a pay increase. So the answer is really simple: it pays to be with a union. For that very good reason, this bill is promoting collective bargaining and strengthening unions’ rights in the workplace.

Some people might have noticed my badge. Yesterday, during the committee stage of the bill, the member for Clutha-Southland said he had googled my name. At first, I thought it was a bit freaky, but he actually said he had discovered I was a union delegate—as if that’s something to be ashamed of. Yes, I was a union delegate before I became a union president for four consecutive terms. I’m a solidarity member of E tū and a proud member of the union.

What the comments of the other side really clearly show to us is that they have no idea what it means to give service to working people. A large part of being a union delegate or being in the union as an organiser or an official actually means that you’re standing up for the colleagues and for their working rights, and that means that you are resolving a lot of the workplace problems as a delegate, with your colleagues, before they escalate. As a union delegate, that often means long hours, all hours of the day, and you’re missing time with your family. That is all because the person that is too vulnerable to speak up needs your support. So others are quiet and the delegate speaks up.

I know that the member for Coromandel spoke about greater protection for union members—such a bad thing! Delegates standing up for vulnerable people should not have their jobs put at risk for doing so, and it’s great to see that in this bill we have added protections to protect union members from discrimination just because they are union members. I find it actually really shameful that this perspective is shown from the other side to people who are giving so much to serving others.

It’s also really good to see the paid time for union delegates in this bill, but, again, the activities need to relate to the employment of employees by the employer. So it’s not just anything they’re doing; it’s actually beneficial for their employer as well. I said before, unions are holding the line for the members, and it’s called a spill over effect because all workers in New Zealand benefit from the union-negotiated wage increases and wage trends.

We actually had quite a few submissions to our Education and Workforce Committee—455 submissions, and we heard 86 of those in person in Wellington and Auckland. The Council of Trade Unions talked really well about that spill over effect. They said that the changes which this bill reverses deliberately aimed to weaken the bargaining strength of collectivised workers in the sure knowledge it would result in lower wages and conditions, and that is what has occurred over the last years. This not only impacts unionised workers but has a spill over effect on all workers because they benefit from union-negotiated wage increases and wage trends. These negotiated wage increases set the standard for many other jobs.

There’s a few other things that—[Phone rings] Is that my time, is it? There are a few other items in this bill I’d like to clarify. We have the 90-day trial, for example. There was no evidence whatsoever, at the time, when the National Party, without a select committee process, pushed that law through, that it would create extra jobs—no evidence at all—and no evidence to this day, because we asked the officials if it created extra jobs. All we had, as Jacqui Dean pointed out, were stories—stories of how this is a good thing—and that’s really all we had on that.

Now, the duty to conclude is a really important one, and I’d like to talk a little bit about that. There was a Supplementary Order Paper on that. Basically, the current situation with the duty to conclude is that an employer can go through the motions. They can just meet with the union and meet with workers, and, after a few meetings, they say, “Look, we can’t come to an agreement. This is all too hard.” They call it surface bargaining, and they can walk away from the bargaining table. They don’t have to do anything else, but what they can do—because for the next few weeks, the union can’t renegotiate—is they can offer individual agreements to all of the workforce. They can pick them off one by one, give them individual employment agreements, and kill that collective agreement.

These, of course, are the bad employers that we have in New Zealand. They are in the minority. The vast majority treat their employees well. They look after them—they’re their family—but that small amount of bad employers completely erodes and undermines those good employers.

So it’s completely a good thing, and I don’t understand why the National Party keep saying it isn’t, but that is probably because they have no idea about industrial relations, about employment law, or, in fact, about this bill. Jacqui Dean, again, referred to the MECA, and said that if a person has to be forced on to a MECA—well, actually, it’s called a collective agreement. The MECA, also, is not a “multi-employer collective Act”, like some people have referred to it as. It’s a multi-employer collective agreement. And, as the member for Northcote said, “If your employer is on a collective agreement, the MECA still applies and you cannot opt out of it.”—that doesn’t even make any sense.

So the scary thing is that these are people that are telling some of the businesses that might be watching completely incorrect information. I’m quite happy to meet with anybody out there that would like some real clarification, and I’m sure that at the end, they will applaud this bill. It’s good for them. It’s good for their workers.

That’s 10 minutes already, so I have a few more things to say, but I’ll finish off by saying thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. This is a fantastic bill. I’m absolutely honoured to be standing here as a proud union member, seeing this bill come into action. Thank you, Minister Iain Lees-Galloway. Thank you, team.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): National believes in workers. National believes in everyday working New Zealanders, and that is why we oppose this bill.

Now, the members opposite may be living in an alternative reality where what everyday New Zealanders care about is the definition of “MECA”. They may live in an alternative reality where they think workers have no rights and unions have no rights, where we’re living in a time of industrial servitude, but, actually, we are living in a time of unprecedented high employment. We are living in a time where National has set the framework for employment relations in this country, and the results have been the creation of up to 10,000 jobs a month, wages rising faster than inflation year after year, and record high rates of labour force participation. These things don’t just happen. They happen when you focus on managing the economy in a way that supports businesses to hire people, to treat them well, and to provide them with more opportunities.

Instead, what we have in this bill is an alternative approach that says, “Let’s ignore reality. Let’s ignore modern reality.”—let’s ignore the fact that, actually, 83 percent of working New Zealanders are not in a union. That is not the choice they made—83 percent of people working in a job today say, “Actually, I like having an individual employment agreement with my employer. I like the flexibility that provides me to negotiate what works for me and what works for them in a modern workplace.”

This bill ignores the reality of flexible workplaces, and this bill supposes that employers should not be trusted—that employers are trying to erode worker rights. Now, let us be clear: there are some bad employers out there, and that is why we have a robust legal framework in New Zealand that allows them to be taken to task when they don’t treat people well. But what this bill does is put at risk a relatively settled employment relations framework that has existed in previous years, and it’s already started to erode while the Labour Government has been in power.

What we are told is that the reason businesses lack confidence in this Government has nothing to do with this bill; it’s actually the power of Scott Simpson. Scott Simpson’s roadshow has managed to erode all business confidence in New Zealand. If that is the case, as Marja Lubeck likes to claim, then I would like to congratulate Scott Simpson for taking on the resources and power of Government, the dozens of Government departments, and the thousands of dollars being spent on promoting this bill, and winning. But let’s be honest. This is not about Scott Simpson; this is about businesses not liking a Government that wants to load on the bureaucracy, load on the red tape, and take away the flexibility. That is not what businesses in New Zealand want.

So let us have a look at what it is in this bill that’s worrying people and that’s giving them cause for concern. Well, of course, one of the key features is taking away 90-day trials. Oh, that’s right: 90-day trials are just fine when it comes to businesses with fewer than 20 employees. So here we have this terrible contradiction that members opposite have had to dance on the head of throughout their speeches that, actually, 90-day trials are great when you’ve got fewer than 20 employees, because we want to encourage people to take a risk on workers and we want them to take on people they might otherwise fear will put their business at risk—we want them to do that when they’ve got fewer than 20 employees—but the minute they’ve got 21 employees, no way. Members opposite seem to have no understanding of the practical implications of that arbitrary distinction.

I have visited early childcare services who say to me, “We will keep our headcount under 20 from now on, because we always want to be able to protect the children we serve and the families we serve from employees we believe are not up to scratch, and we believe the 90-day trial provides us with a way of doing that.” They say to me that they will actually stop hiring people in order to be able to use this provision. That is the practical implication of taking away 90-day trials for many employers.

What else does this bill do? Well, one of the things it does that I think New Zealanders should be made much more aware of, and will become very aware of in the coming months, is that it subjugates privacy rights to union recruitment needs. It does that by requiring every employer in this country who comes to an individual employment contract agreement with an individual employee—it says “You may have done that, but here’s the form you need to require your employee to fill out.”, stating which union they may or may not join in the future and giving their contact details.

Now, some employees might not want to fill out that form. They might forget to fill out that form. They might not quite get around to it. So what happens in that case? Well, then we have the privacy punishment—don’t fill in the union form, and then the unions will be told you haven’t filled in the form and will be given your contact details, and who knows what happens next? We will find out over the next few months and, mark my words, people do not like it when their private information and their private choice not to join a union are shared against their knowledge. We will see that play out.

What else does this bill do? There is a series of steps in here that erode flexibility in the workplace. Let’s—

Hon Willie Jackson: We don’t like flexibility.

NICOLA WILLIS: Oh, Willie Jackson calls out. He says “We don’t like flexibility.”, so what he doesn’t like is the fact that in New Zealand, we have seasonal industries. We have industries where, in fact, actually, at some times of year, they’re busier than others because you’re picking fruit at one time of year or another. What he doesn’t like is the fact that some businesses are busy at some times of day and not busy at others. What he doesn’t like is that thousands of people have been hired in this country because workplaces have been able to be flexible in the jobs that they offer. That’s what Willie Jackson doesn’t like.

Well, Willie Jackson, I’ll tell you what you don’t like: you don’t like 2018. This is the modern reality of workplaces and employment, not just in New Zealand but around the world, and taking us back to a rigid time is simply a back-to-the-future step—you’re looking a little bit tired on it, Minister.

So where else do we erode flexibility? We have this idea that rest and meal breaks will now need to be imposed, and, of course, we had one of the speakers earlier saying, “Oh no, they can negotiate out of that.” Well, of course, I’ll tell you what real employers fear. They fear a situation in which unions—growing, because of these wonderful provisions they’ve been provided with—are able to muscle in to workplaces and impose collective agreements that erode flexibility. That is what employers are worried about. And you can tell me that employers’ worries are unjustified—you can tell me that—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order!

NICOLA WILLIS: —but all you should do is look—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The use of—

NICOLA WILLIS: —members opposite—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The use of the personal pronoun “you” brings the Speaker into the debate. Please don’t do that.

NICOLA WILLIS: Members opposite can say that employers’ concerns are misplaced, but what members opposite need to look at is the business confidence rates in this country. Employers lack confidence in this Government and what they are doing for the economy, and they lack that confidence for good reason, and members opposite should look at those statistics on a daily basis and hang their heads in shame.

Then we have this issue of collective bargaining. We have the issues of reasonable paid time for unions. Again, employers—more than 200 of them; the actual number was more than 250. I don’t have the precise number here—249 submitters raised concerns about what this bill would mean. What they said was that they were concerned about how would it be interpreted, what the words would mean, would they end up in court, and they simply didn’t see the need for change.

What they felt was that it was implying that one size could fit all, when they knew that that was not the case in their workplace. I sat on the Education and Workforce Committee and listened to the people who came and talked to us about their concerns and their fears about their bill, and I want the people listening tonight to know that in this country, we have some incredible employers. We have people who go the extra mile for their staff, who make the choice to do the extra bit for people, to give them a chance to get the next opportunity to get ahead.

We have people who put their own livelihoods on the line, so they can hire people, give them pay rises, and give them a few more hours work. I say to those employers, the National Party backs you. The National Party trusts you, and we think that this Government should too, but this bill unfortunately does not. This bill says the Labour Government doesn’t believe in New Zealand’s employers and doesn’t trust them to do what’s right by workers.

This bill is not about modern New Zealand. It is not about the workers of 2018. It doesn’t bring us forward; it brings us backwards. It diminishes trust between employers and employees for no benefit. It puts at risk the settled employment relations and businesses up and down this country. This is a step backwards—another step backwards—by this Labour Government, and National is proud to oppose it.

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a privilege to speak on the third reading of this bill. The National Party, this afternoon, walked off the job to express their views and feelings after the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Leader of the House were ejected by the Speaker. Now, I make no comment about that—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Speak to the bill, not—

Hon CLARE CURRAN: I am, Mr Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No, you weren’t. You were speaking to procedures in the House earlier today that the Speaker has already ruled on. That’s the end of it. Kia ora.

Hon CLARE CURRAN: This afternoon, that party is voting against a bill which will stop employers from being able to dock the pay of workers who, like them, went on strike and walked off the job—one rule for them and another for everyone else.

There have been some extraordinary statements made by the Opposition during the debate on this bill. Andrew Bayly stated that, and I’ll quote from what he said, “People should have the right to work out when they want to work, how they want to work, and on what basis they want to work.” Lawrence Yule argued that employers should not have to pay the minimum wage base. Jacqui Dean claims that union organisers would be bursting on to the shop floors of hot jam factories, demanding to talk to members and creating health and safety risks.

I want to read to you—yesterday, I spoke about the Woodhaugh Rest Home in Dunedin where a union organiser was called in by members of the union, where they had a collective agreement, because of the hours being cut of full-time workers and because there were other issues going on in the rest home. The union organiser was served a trespass notice and wasn’t allowed to enter that rest home. I just wanted to tell you that that rest home was subject to complaints in 2015, with an anonymous phone call to a district health board, where a clinical manager had fainted from exhaustion and broken her pelvis. She was claimed to have been working 80-hour weeks, the residents said the food often ran out, relatives were being asked to bring in food, and there were many other issues taking place, and the union organiser, legitimately wanting to go into the workplace, was served a trespass notice by the owner.

Those are the sorts of issues that this bill is trying to address—more than trying to address; will address, will take us back to a place of fairness. It’s a bill that undoes the wrongs of the previous Government for those who earn the wages in the workplaces where the employers have disproportionate power over their working conditions and their right to be represented by a union. It’s a fairness bill. It rights wrongs and it demonstrates the close and constructive relationship in this coalition Government with our coalition partner, New Zealand First, and with our confidence and supply partner, the Greens. It absolutely demonstrates how constructive that relationship is. It’s about sharing economic growth. It’s about improving well-being. It’s about valuing workers, vulnerable workers, and it’s about acknowledging the importance of unions, the voices of working people.

We’ve had speakers talk about the evidence of the decline of unions and collective bargaining that has been strongly linked to the growth in inequality and how—I think the Greens talked about this—the IMF and the World Bank have reversed advice they’ve given and are now encouraging collective bargaining.

This bill is not the be all and end all of what needs to be done to right the imbalances in this country, but by God it’s a good start. Thank you to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, Iain Lees-Galloway. Thank you to the Education and Workforce Committee, who worked hard on this bill, to all the officials that worked hard on this bill, and to the people that submitted on this bill. Thank you to the Wellington Hospital cleaners, to the Tegel chicken workers, to the real working people that came and said what this means for their working lives.

I want to address, finally, the workplaces of the future. Comments were made by some member across the House bemoaning the workplaces of the future and how this is going to suddenly be doom and gloom. The workplaces of the future will be successful with a constructive collaboration between businesses and the people who work for them. Look at Air New Zealand, look at Fonterra, look at KiwiRail—they get that. Just recently there’s been a union set up in the tech industry. Now, why has that happened? It’s because that is a workplace of the future that needs organising, needs more fairness, and needs consideration of how you get more women into working in that industry. High-wage, highly productive economy—that’s the future. That’s what we should be talking about. I’m proud of this Government for this bill. I’m relieved for working people, and I’m proud of our unions. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Bill read a third time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call on Government orders of the day Nos 2 to 5.

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House has made excellent progress through the course of this afternoon and it seems appropriate that as we come to the end of one bill and before we get another bill that we take the opportunity—sorry, I seek leave for the House to adjourn for the dinner break.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): No. And I think what we’ll do is put the House into committee, and then we’ll finish.

Members, it has come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. However, I declare that when the House returns at 7.30 p.m., the House will be in committee for further consideration of the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill and for the consideration of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill, the Earthquake Commission Amendment Bill, and the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill. Kia ora mai tātou.

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

Bills

Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 4 December.

Clause 1 Title (continued)

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): When I was making my contribution when the bells rang last night, I had introduced briefly the bill and spoken about the extension of palliation, and had thanked New Zealand First for their contribution in that regard. That will be moved in my SOP when we come to that part of the bill. That extends the protection for those who use illicit cannabis who are dying, to ensure that they have a compassionate consideration, and that they can access cannabis without fear of prosecution until we get a regular supply of medicinal products in New Zealand.

I spoke about the medicinal cannabis scheme that we’ll be setting up with this bill, and the way in which that will be overseen. I also spoke about the deregistering of cannabidiol and the use of seeds, which the Green Party has suggested as an amendment, which will be in our SOP, around the use of seeds, which are already existing in New Zealand because there are New Zealand specific strains, which may have medicinal possibilities that exporters may wish to use and promote, and also thanked the Green Party for their contribution around ensuring that regulations must be in place a year after the bill has passed in the House. I want to thank the parties of the coalition for their contributions.

Now is not the time for a broad debate; we’re on the title clause. I briefly did want to acknowledge though that the Opposition has brought a couple of SOPs to the committee that we’ll discuss at the appropriate point. One of them looks to put a parliamentary sunset clause into the legislation. I guess I have a mixed reaction to that. We have, in our bill, a review that would enable the Minister of Health, who’s accountable to this House, to end the exemption for illicit cannabis. I have some amusement, I guess, at the concession contained therein. Because, of course, if there was a National Government in place in 30 months’ time they themselves could bring it to the Parliament if they wanted to. I guess, effectively, in this SOP the member is conceding there won’t be a National Government at that time. I think I want to admire his courage for getting that through his caucus. Because I think that’s quite extraordinary that he should be conceding the election at this early stage. So it’s a somewhat pointless SOP because if they are in Government, they could certainly bring that matter back to the House if it concerned them. I guess, with that SOP, they’re effectively conceding they’re expecting the coalition to carry on beyond the election. I suspect when he took it through his caucus he wasn’t deliberately undermining his leader or anything like that. But I am amused that it has reached the committee.

The other SOP puts regulation in place around the bill. The Opposition will contest that that regulation is important. I would argue that it’s better for experts to design the regulation as we move in what is, effectively, a moving market where new safety aspects and so on will kick in. We need to have a flexible responsive regime where experts not politicians can comment on this.

But as I say it’s a narrow debate. The first one, it’s on the title so that will be the end of my contribution. I feel like I’ve introduced a bill and the debate that is to come. Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. And while the Minister is correct that the title clause is a narrow debate, the presiding officers have been generous enough to allow the Minister to provide a reasonably broad basis upon which we can commence the committee of the whole House stage. I think that is a sensible start to what will be, I hope, a sensible debate.

The Minister in his contribution both last night and right now has, I think, shown a slightly graceless approach to what has been a lost opportunity for some bipartisan support for an important piece of legislation across the House. Last night he congratulated and thanked and acknowledged himself, his Government colleagues in the New Zealand First party and the Greens, but could not bring himself to acknowledge any of the contributions that have been made by the National Party and, indeed, specifically Dr Shane Reti on this important issue. That is, indeed, a disappointment and a shame. I worry. I am a supreme optimist—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Please refer to the member with his proper name.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I do apologise. The Minister—I worry that that is a marker of the attitude that could prevail in this debate, where there is actually a really good opportunity to get into the detail of this bill and look objectively at some of the sensible proposals for amendment that have been provided by him, by the Government, and also by the National Party and Dr Shane Reti.

Now the title of the bill is actually something of an indicator of the mismatch of what we’re trying to do here because it is an amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act, but, indeed, its primary purpose is to create a licensing regime for not the criminalising of the use of substances but the decriminalising of them, and, in particular, a framework for being able to enable those who are chronically unwell, in pain, and who may have the opportunity to benefit from the sorts of substances, the sorts of medicines, that can be created out of THC products that are not presently available. The bill does talk to that. I have to say that it says very little—in fact, nearly nothing—about that. The clause that we will debate later on says 59 words about the licensing regime—59 words. So this is something that I’m sure the Minister of Police and the New Zealand Police will be very interested in. Health authorities, mental health authorities, and social development agencies are going to be vitally interested in what we are actually doing here, and the Minister and the Government provide guidance to the degree of 59 words.

The other part of the bill, which is actually commensurate with the title of the bill, the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill, provides something of an exemption from prosecution from the present Misuse of Drugs Act—a thing that I have described as an island of immunity in an archipelago of offending—because the bill, as it was introduced, provides an exemption from prosecution for those who would use illicit substances because they are dying, and the National Party will support that. We support that because, frankly, by the definition of the bill as it came in, that is hardly the most heinous breach of the Misuse of Drugs Act. We heard from Richard Chambers, the Assistant Commissioner of New Zealand Police, responsible for prosecutions and investigations, who told us that, indeed, New Zealand Police aren’t out there arresting and locking up terminally ill patients because they are having a joint, nor should they. But Mr Chambers also agreed that there was an issue that New Zealand Police will face because while they may not be able to prosecute and don’t care much to prosecute those people who are ingesting the illicit substances, they may well be quite interested—[Bell rung]

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I will call the honourable member again. However, you’ve spent the last call largely talking broadly about the bill. I did allow the Minister in the chair to give some general statements. I will now ask you to confine yourself to clause 1, which is about the title.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Thank you, Madam Chair, and it is to the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister described in his opening bat that I will address my comments, because I think they’re really important both to the title and to the purpose of what we are trying to do here, and that is that we, basically, provide an exemption from prosecution for those people who are using these drugs.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): That debate will come up later. That will come up in later clauses. Confine yourself to the title clause, please.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, I will, Madam Chair, because, actually, we can call this any number of things and we can have a quite trite sort of debate about whether the title is correct. But I’d rather actually address whether or not it is correct by looking at the substance of what we’re trying to do, and that is provide an immunity from prosecution.

Now the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)—he has said in his opening call on clause 1 that he has introduced an SOP to change the definition of “terminal” exemption away from 12 months to something else. And in my second reading speech I indicated that National would have a problem with that if indeed palliation, as it was described, would open the gate for people who were not dying but who were otherwise receiving palliation through their medicine to be able to ingest illicit substances. Having studied the Minister’s SOP, that is not indeed what he has done—what the Government has done. In fact, anybody looking at this could argue that, in fact, this tightens, not loosens, that exemption, but nevertheless it certainly hasn’t gone to the degree that we would have significant concern with.

One area we will have concern with and we will discuss when the clause comes up is the absence—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I ask the member one more time. This is your last warning. I ask you to come to clause 1, “Title”, please. This is the debate we are debating. It’s a very narrow debate.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will then therefore add my trite contributions about what the title could be, because it is anything but an amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act. What this does is decriminalise cannabis. So let’s talk about how it does that. It does that because the Government has given a pass to people who smoke cannabis and therefore the title could easily be something different: the “Get out of Jail Card”, the “Island of Immunity in an Archipelago of Offending” title, because that’s exactly what this does. The title could easily be many other things to give effect to what is actually happening here and that is immunity from prosecution.

Now the purpose of the bill, as it’s laid out, talks about a temporary exemption from prosecution until a licensing regime is in place. Only here’s the problem with that: it’s not temporary; there’s no time limit. This could go on for ever and the Minister in his opening salvo tonight says, “Ah, ha, ha. The National Party don’t think they’re going to be back in Government.” That is not the problem we have with this. The problem is when we’re back in Government in less than two years’ time, we’re going to have to come back to this House and introduce primary legislation to do what this bill says it’s going to do, including in the title, and that is provide a temporary regime.

There’s nothing temporary about this and that’s why, when we do get to debate Dr Reti’s SOP providing for a time limit on this, we’ll be doing the Government’s work. We’ll be doing what they said the bill is intended to do: provide a temporary exemption from prosecution. But the meat and drink of this will be in what the licensing regime looks like and, actually, this is where the primary purpose of the bill and the title of the bill are a complete mismatch, because there was no reference in the title to what we’re really doing here and that is creating a legitimate licensing regime.

The title is not only inadequate but the clause that gives effect to that is woefully inadequate: 59 words—and we decided that wasn’t good enough. We tried in select committee, we tried in the second reading, and now we’re going to try again to do that with Dr Reti’s SOP, which provides the bones, the meat on the bones, to a noble but fundamentally flawed bill.

Now the Government says they’re not going to support it. I’m optimistic that we can convince them through this committee stage, however long that’s going to take, that that is the right thing to do, because this is the purpose of the bill as described by the title.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Madam Chair, this will be a short call. I just, however, want to respond to a few of the comments made by Michael Woodhouse, particularly within his own framing of them being quite trite. With regard to how he stated that this is an incorrect title for this legislation, being the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill—that’s exactly what this bill does: it amends the Misuse of Drugs Act, because the Misuse of Drugs Act schedules cannabis within class C as a controlled substance.

With regard to his point about how this will provide, supposedly, immunity from prosecution and it could therefore be the “Immunity from Prosecution Bill”, that is completely untrue and just, actually, factually incorrect. That’s not how this law would operate. I’m not sure if Mr Woodhouse is familiar with how the prosecution process operates or works, but a criminal defence does not shelter you from prosecution in any way, shape, or form. It is a criminal defence for when you have been prosecuted and you are defending yourself in a legal case. It is a defence.

I also wanted to respond to his point about how this is supposedly decriminalising cannabis. I mean, if we really wanted to go down that path, I suppose, to a certain extent, it could be argued that we’re decriminalising cannabis for those who are in palliative care—i.e. on their deathbed. Do we really want to stop those people—in the same words that were used by Michael Woodhouse—from smoking a joint? I just find that quite a sad contribution and would hope that we can end this debate on the title clause so that we can get to commencement, because patients have been waiting for far too long.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a call in the committee of the whole House of this bill, the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill and to speak to clause 1, the title. Just acknowledging those for the body of work that we are going to be talking on here tonight, there are a number of people who have helped us to get this stage: the industry players; I’d like to acknowledge the Parliamentary Counsel Office, Sarah Gwynn, Shane Le Brun from Medical Cannabis Awareness New Zealand, and international and local collaborators.

The title talks to “Misuse of Drugs”—open bracket “Medicinal Cannabis” close bracket—“Amendment Bill. The open bracket and close bracket “Medicinal Cannabis” could of course be “(Medicinal Cannabis Products)” or “(Medicinal Cannabis Scheme)”. It has quite some breadth to it, and I’ll come to some of the breadth that the Minister took when he described the previous bill and this current bill. But as a medicinal cannabis product, the position that we will be taking, and as a scheme, is that we’ll outline our position and why, and we’ll outline the principles that have guided us to that position and the pathway to solutions towards medicinal cannabis products that in our hands will be high quality; will be safe, accessible, and affordable; and will ease the suffering of New Zealanders.

In the previous bill, as the Minister outlined in his introduction, there were three main objectives. The first was to deschedule cannabidiol (CBD); the second was the terminal exception, which we’ve heard some discussion on already; and the third was quality standards for a medicinal cannabis scheme. In this bill it maintains—and certainly the title describes it accurately, I think—descheduling CBD. It modifies the terminal exception. It starts describing the medicinal cannabis scheme—it uses words like “cultivation” and “manufacturing”—and it adds support for a domestic strain. We’ll talk to all of these. Some of these, we think, they have actually done a better job, so the title does actually describe it quite well. Some of the modifications, we think, have actually made it worse, and some we just cannot get to, and we’ll describe exactly why that is as we progress.

I think the main issues that we want to put on the table here—that would well come under the title and that we would not change the title to encompass—would be that we will have some challenges around loose leaf, which has already been described by various members tonight, and we will have some challenges around what the media have called legislative laziness—that is, the medicinal cannabis scheme, which clearly, again, sits under the title of “medicinal cannabis” and that we see and that the public have seen as a huge emptiness, a bare blackboard, and that’s what we want to talk to in this bill in this debate. What we want to do is we want to bring forward any knowledge we may have that might be useful. We have been willing to share. We are still willing to share. None of us have a franchise on all the good ideas in the world; neither do we. But what we do have, we’d like to share.

I’d like to pick up on what the Minister said when he was raising the question around Supplementary Order Paper 179, which talks to a sunset clause. We’ll come to that and other clauses in greater detail, but just to say there is a formula that brought us to that point. It was agnostic to which party holds the Treasury benches; it was just trying to do the right thing. So as we get to that clause, we’ll see if the Minister still stands by his position when he can see how we came to it.

The medicinal cannabis title—we think this is a completely adequate title. We see no need to change it. In our hands, it could be a number of other things, and we’ve thought about this, but the gravity of what we’re talking about—fundamentally starting some process towards cannabis reform in a shape—is really not requiring any smart sort of changes to the title other than what it is. It describes it accurately. We will talk to parts of it as medicinal cannabis products. We’ll talk to parts of it as medicinal cannabis licensing. We’ll talk to parts of it as medicinal cannabis scheme—all of which sit under the title. So we’re very much looking forward to further discussion. Again, we’ll just put on the table that we have come here tonight to collaborate and are happy to share with those across the Chamber. Thank you.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 Commencement

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak to the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill, particularly clause 2, of course, the commencement. I’d like to highlight in the first instance that, of course, as drafted currently, the Act is to come into force the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. In legislative terms, this is, of course, immediately, anon, forthwith, etc. So my question to the Minister will be around the time frame and, in particular, whether more time might be needed to understand the effects of this bill for those who will be affected by its provisions.

Just to reflect briefly on the debate about whether drugs are more so a justice issue or a health issue, I think it goes without saying that at least to some extent, they are both. That really leads into the first of my points in relation to the fact that this is a very significant change, and, accordingly, sufficient time should be taken by this House and, actually, more to the point, the entire nation to understand its effects before it will become the law of the land.

So I’d like to make five points in arguing that a greater period of time is needed, and I’d certainly look forward to the Minister’s comment, if he’s prepared to provide that, on those points. The first is the significance of the change, and I’ll go through these each in a bit more detail; the second being the complexity of the issues at stake from the perspective of the health issues that we will be considering in this legislation; the third is the nature of the prohibition; the fourth is the potential for uncertainty in terms of the way that the definitions of the bill are put together; and the fifth and final, the legislative history, and an argument that I’ll get to regarding the fact that there has been a lot of back and forth, if I can put it like that, in terms of the way that this piece of legislation has reached us in this committee tonight.

So the first of those five points is the significance of the change. I think it’s probably well accepted on all sides of this Chamber and, indeed, on all sides of the debate that it is a very serious topic and there has been considerable public interest in it for some time. That in itself, I would argue, is a reason for allowing the issue to reside in the public consciousness in terms of understanding the change that will be made, and it seems that the change will be made by passage of this legislation before, as I say, it has time to be effective, and therefore begin to impact on the legal and other rights of New Zealanders.

My second point goes to the complexity of the health issues involved, and it’s no trivial matter, of course, to understand, for example, what it means to have a “CBD product”. The particular definition relates to another clause in the bill, so of course I won’t go into that as a matter of substance, but just to note that there are complex issues that are thrashed out in this bill, and more than one day following the Royal assent, I think, would be appropriate for New Zealanders to be able to get a good handle on that.

The third is the nature of the prohibition. So I refer to the fact that the mechanism is, effectively, immunity from prosecution as opposed to some other kind of exemption or some other carve-out in the law. I think that even tonight, the debate that we’ve had in this committee, even in these early stages, reflects the fact that that’s a matter of some complexity for which understanding and therefore time to understand would be helpful.

My fourth point relates to uncertainty, or at least, as I say, the potential for uncertainty. That goes to issues of definition, where we talk later about, for example—and, again, I won’t dwell on it at this stage—a pipe or another utensil, and then in brackets we’ve got the fact that that’s not a needle or syringe by definition. So it’s just the ability for people, whether health professionals, those in need from a health perspective, or others who might contemplate their rights under this bill to get their head around what these definitions are and what that means in terms of what they’re able to do. So that’s my argument as to timing, as far as uncertainty is concerned.

Fifth and final is the legislative history. We’ve had a member’s bill in the name of Chlöe Swarbrick, who, of course, is contributing to the current debate. We’ve now got this bill presented on behalf of the Government by the health Minister. We’ve got another member’s bill that’s being proposed by Dr Shane Reti—not currently on the Table, of course—and various Supplementary Order Papers in relation to this. So, again, a lot of things for people to consider and understand, and more time, I think, is needed, therefore.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure this evening to speak on a bill that I’m just becoming familiar with, the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill. I’ve been following this bill quite closely from aside—my colleague Shane Reti has been working diligently on this bill—and it’s my pleasure to talk to clause 2. Just to echo the sentiment that my colleague Chris Penk raised, I do feel that the commencement date, which is the date that it comes into force, which is, essentially, the date after it receives its Royal assent—I think that it’s too early, and I’ll outline for you the reasons why I think it’s too early.

The first is around the impacts on this market. So we will, essentially, be allowing the use of medicinal cannabis, including loose leaf, for medicinal purposes, and that will create a bit of an increase in market demand. So my sense is that the market will need time to respond to that, and so we’re going to need a little bit more time for the market to understand and get those ramifications.

The second thing, which I think my colleague touched on a little bit, but I’ll expand on a little bit more, is around the consumer side. There are some serious health risks in this bill, and we do need to ensure that the public is given a chance to have a sufficient awareness around the—

Hon Stuart Nash: What, it might kill you a week earlier?

DAN BIDOIS: —yes, thank you, Stuart Nash—health risks of medicinal cannabis, and that’s also going to take time for an education campaign, essentially, to roll out in this bill. That means that the Government will require a little bit of money for this, and I don’t think the Government has actually budgeted any money for marketing, for preparing the public for such a bill. So that leads me to the conclusion that we need a little bit more time—somewhere around the next Budget date, where the Government would have, essentially, been able to put in the Budget some money for marketing for health awareness both from consumers but also from the market perspective as well.

Just to reiterate what my colleague said around the justice system, there are some significant implications of this bill for the justice system, and they are going to need time to take into account the changes and the potential changes from this bill. So that leads me to this fantastic Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the name of my colleague Dr Shane Reti, which is SOP 178. He’s got a fantastic proposal in this—

Chlöe Swarbrick: It’s not about the commencement clause.

DAN BIDOIS: It is. In fact, if I just go to SOP 178, there’s a fantastic recommendation by Shane to replace clause 2—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Full names, please.

DAN BIDOIS: Which is clause 2—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No—the member. When you’re referring to another member—

DAN BIDOIS: Shane Reti.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you. We’ve gotten a little slack, I have to say. I know we’re heading into Christmas, but we should honour the members with their full names and titles as appropriate. Thank you.

DAN BIDOIS: I totally agree. Thank you, Madam Chair. So Dr Shane Reti has proposed, in his SOP 178, that we shift the date that this bill comes into force to six months after the date which the Act receives its Royal assent. I think that this would be an appropriate time for the bill to come into force, given the issues that I’ve outlined in terms of the constraints on our Budget, given the awareness and the health issues that we have raised today, and given the justice issues that my colleague Chris Penk has raised. I think the six-months thing would mean that that would take us, essentially, to next year’s Budget.

So I would urge the Minister and I would encourage the Minister to respond to the proposal by Dr Shane Reti to shift the date into force six months after its Royal assent. So that is fantastic. Of course, we oppose this bill. It would have been great to have other—and I’m looking forward to debate on that matter.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Madam Chair, thank you. Just to respond to a couple of points. I suspect the Opposition members may be a little confused about how this will roll out, so I’m happy to clarify for the committee.

There was a suggestion that the bill should come into force a little later to allow members to get their heads around it in light of public interest—that was made by a member—and to reflect on whether drugs are a health issue or a criminal justice issue. I would reflect back to the committee, firstly, that there has been a thorough select committee process where members of the public have interacted, and I think we underestimate members of the public at our peril in terms of their engagement with this issue and with this bill.

But where I think the members may have become a little confused is that they are talking already about a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) relating to another part of the bill, but saying that the regulations coming into effect six months later would be a good thing to allow further time for people to reflect and for this to occur. In fact, as the bill is currently drafted, with my SOP, it would be one year after, which would indeed allow people more time and also would allow for consultation on regulations more fully.

So the members seem a little confused. They’re asking for more time and then proposing a time frame which is actually likely to be less time than the regulations come into effect. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Fascinating insight on the select committee process by the Minister David Clark, who said there were fantastic submissions to the select committee—only, the Government didn’t listen. The Government paid no mind whatsoever to the very good suggestions that those submitters made. Now, not all of them we agreed with. There were a number of submissions on quite strong liberalising of the terminal exemption, for example, which comes into effect, according to clause 2, the day after this gets Royal assent. I think that’s relevant in terms of the context of how we blend this changed law into our judicial system, but I think it’s quite inappropriate of the Minister to acknowledge the submissions that he himself didn’t listen to.

Now, in respect of the licensing regime, the commencement date is less of an issue, because it’s going to take some time to get a licensing regime up and running. Now, we know how long it’s going to take, because by the Government Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), it’s going to take no longer than 12 months. Now, I don’t know what’s going to happen on day 366 if, indeed, the ministry and Medsafe don’t get the licensing regime. Is there a sanctions regime? Is there a punishment for the Government officials for not meeting the arbitrary time frame that the Government has put in place? I actually think it’s a good idea, but, indeed, it’s probably less of an issue than it is to do with the terminal exemption, because if the terminal exemption comes in on the day after this bill is enacted, then we have an issue with the justice system and with the law enforcement process, and I would be fascinated to understand from the Government and the Minister how indeed this is going to work.

What we have is—despite what Chlöe Swarbrick said in her last intervention—a regime where a class C substance is presently illegal. The day after this receives Royal assent, it will also be illegal. Regardless of whether the person might be immune from prosecution, the act is still illegal. On the day before the bill gets Royal assent, somebody could be liable for arrest and prosecution. What’s not clear to me is what happens if somebody who has been arrested and is in the judicial system facing an offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act—what happens to them on the day after this bill gains Royal assent? Are they immune? Are they nevertheless going to have their prosecutions carried out? Are they in limbo? We need to actually understand. It’s not a straw-person argument; it’s very real.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of prosecutions under this part of the Misuse of Drugs Act, and it could be—in fact, it’s quite plausible—that somebody who was suffering or believes themselves to be suffering a terminal illness that may result in their imminent demise could have been arrested and charged with offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Now, I hope they aren’t prosecuted. I hope they still have an opportunity to become immune, but what’s not clear to me is whether there is some kind of ability for the justice system to stop and say, “You were arrested the day before this bill came into effect.” Therefore, what? Is one still liable on the day after it comes into effect? Should there be a period after the bill gains Royal assent for it not to become effective, or should it be retrospective? One very plausible possibility is, actually, that it clears previous charges that have been laid but the prosecution has not been complete, so that those people who are in the justice pipeline don’t need to come out of it. They themselves can also be immune, even though their arrests and charges had taken place prior to this bill gaining Royal assent.

So I am interested in how we’re going to transition this. There are usually transitional provisions in a bill, particularly a Crimes Act bill or a Misuse of Drugs Act bill. There is no reference to that in this bill, so if the Minister could explain what will happen to anybody who is in the justice pipeline on the day after this bill gains Royal assent, I would be very grateful.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d just like to speak to clause 2 of this Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill, because I’m really interested in this commencement date. What it says is that it comes into force the day after the date that it receives Royal assent, but, actually, I think this commencement date is misleading because of the three purposes of the bill.

This commencement date is only relevant to one of them. It’s relevant to the statutory defence provided to those very sick people—in fact, those who are terminally ill—if they possess or use cannabis. Actually, just thinking about that, I’m not so sure how often this exemption is going to be used, because we talked to the police when they came to the Health Committee, and they said they are very sensitive to this issue. They said that they understand that people who are very sick or terminally ill may want to take the relief of cannabis, and that they were very unlikely to prosecute any of these people—although I do understand that it may lift the responsibility of somebody who’s ill to use cannabis.

But the second purpose of this bill is to amend the bill so that cannabidiol (CBD) is no longer classified as a controlled drug. The commencement date says that that will happen after Royal assent, but, of course, the National Party has already done that. We did that in the past Government by regulation. So this is really more a belts and braces amendment. It’s to do with the Act but, in actual fact, it will make very little difference.

The last purpose—the third purpose—of the bill is to open the door to developing a medicinal cannabis scheme, but it only opens the door. There’s absolutely no detail about what this cannabis scheme would look like, how we would manage the quality of the drugs, how we would grow them properly, how we would manufacture them, how we would process them, how they would be dispensed, and how we would actually manage that scheme. So the commencement date can’t possibly be relevant to a scheme that’s not even described. As we know, as the Minister has said, it will be at least another 12 months to develop that sort of legislation. So, again, this commencement date is totally irrelevant.

So when we look at the commencement date, I’d just like to make it very clear that there’s only a third of the bill, only the exemption for people to use it who are terminally ill—the fact that they have got that statutory defence—that this commencement date will affect. It will not affect the definition of CBD and it will not affect the setting up of a medicinal cannabis scheme. Thank you.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Chair. To speak to the commencement clause is to speak to the timing of the bill—clearly, the start of when the bill comes into effect—and you’ve heard from my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse the concerns we have about the transitions at the boundary of that, but the commencement clause is that sort of start to the timings of the bill.

As has already been alluded to in other clauses, while we’re talking about the start of the bill, we also want to talk about some of the parts of the bill that we want to conclude through Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 179, the sunset clause. The reason we’d want to do that while we’re discussing timings under this clause is because the terminal exception and statutory defence were always viewed as temporary. The Minister said it was temporary. We all get that. Even here today, it’s a temporary scheme. Well, if it’s temporary, it should have an endpoint. That should be part of the timings that come into this clause.

Furthermore, the Health Committee did do a lot of good work in this area, and, yes, we reached a hurdle and we all then went our separate ways at the end, but I defy any members of the select committee who are here today who do not agree that the select committee got to a point where we all agreed on a sunset clause. We all agreed. We got to that point just before we decided that, no, we couldn’t get over the ending, where we all said, “You know, a sunset clause makes sense.” I’m sure the chair of the select committee will be able to reaffirm that we were all in agreement—everyone, unanimously across the select committee—for a sunset clause.

So while we’re in the timings part of the bill, in clause 2, I want to throw some light on our SOP 179 and how we come to execute this sunset clause, which repeals the statutory defence and terminal exception. Simply, it’s like this: the bill has 12 months to be enabled—that’s 12. In the detailed discussions we’ve had with all of the major industry players, they tell us they can be from seed to sale in another 12 months—that’s 24 months. Then there’s always some delay when you’re implementing something like this, and we thought maybe about six months. We know that other jurisdictions can do it a lot quicker, but we thought 30 months would sort of encapsulate everyone and would be a reasonable time frame for a sunset clause for what everyone agrees is a temporary scheme. I’m not hearing anyone—unless there’s something different that the Minister wants to tell us about it and we’d seek his affirmation of this: that he envisages it’s a temporary scheme as well. If it’s temporary, how temporary? While we’re in the timings part of the bill, how temporary is the scheme? Put a number on it so that everyone can see and understand, because we need to understand that we’re dealing with significant liberties here, and a significant start to cannabis reform with this terminal exception. So it’s totally reasonable, for a temporary scheme that everyone agrees to be temporary—“How temporary?” is the question.

We’ve defined that. That’s the logic of how we get to this temporariness, if you like, and why it’s 30 months, and we’ve put it up as SOP 179. So we’d like some clarity from the Minister. Does he have an understanding? Does he have an agreement? The whole select committee got to an agreement on a sunset clause. Does he also agree that the terminal exception and statutory defence are temporary? And, thirdly, if it is temporary, how temporary? Is our 30 months a good starting place, in the logic we’ve given for it? If not, can he come up with another answer and another solution?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I just want to reflect on the three speakers that have spoken and just address their issues. Shane Reti, obviously, spoke about a sunset clause; not about the commencement, so I’ll deal with that when we come to the appropriate clause in the bill.

The Hon Nicky Wagner made the point that the statutory defence only applies to illicit cannabis, by her definition, and noted that the police use discretion. I think that speaks to the prior speaker’s comments, Mr Woodhouse, who raised the issue of what would happen—and it’s the only substantive issue that I’ve seen raised in this commencement debate so far—if somebody was arrested and then the law changed the next day. The way the law stands is that members of the public are subject to the law at the time of offence. It’s a fairly straightforward matter.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 178 in the name of Dr Shane Reti to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 177 in the name of the Hon Dr David Clark to clause 2 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 Principal Act

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. We start to get into something of the substance of this bill, because the principal Act that we are amending is the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, and that Act is a very important piece of legislation. Now, there are differing views not only within this House but around the country about the degree to which the substances that are outlawed by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 are indeed harmful.

There are further discussions and beliefs around the degree to which this Parliament should actually legislate to make something that is a personal choice, something that is ingested by the individual, unlawful under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. Indeed, the Health Committee heard quite a bit from submitters that—it may have been arguably outside the scope of the purpose of this bill, but it certainly wasn’t outside the goal of amending the Misuse of Drugs Act to have that conversation, which was that, perhaps, we should have gone further to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act, on the basis that—well, two things: firstly, it is an individual’s choice whether they want to ingest illegal substances.

Secondly, there are benefits to doing so for people who are outside of the scope of the purpose of this bill, and therefore the Misuse of Drugs Act should be amended even further than the Government intended to do. In my second reading speech, I referred to some research about the efficacy, or lack of it, in respect of the use of cannabis substances in people with chronic non-cancer pain or non-terminal pain. Now, I made a bit of a mistake there, because I referred to it as a longitudinal study of 1,700 people. I’ve gone back and checked. This was an article published in The Lancet of July this year, entitled “Effective cannabis use in people with chronic non-cancer pain”. I speak to that in terms of the degree to which we are amending the Misuse of Drugs Act, because we heard a lot of submissions that we should go further, that we should actually expand this out further than the definition that is contained in clause 4.

I was particularly interested to note the findings of that Lancet study, which is from Australia—the study of 1,514 participants, who completed a baseline interview about their use of illicit substances in the belief that it would be better for them for their chronic conditions. Actually, this study, a very carefully constructed scientific study, found that after four years people—compared with people of no cannabis use—actually were doing worse not better. They had greater pain severity scores than those who hadn’t used cannabis. They had higher reliance on prescription opioids. They had lower pain self-efficacy scores. They had greater generalised anxiety disorders. And there was no evidence of a temporal relationship between cannabis use and pain severity or pain interference, and no evidence that their cannabis use reduced prescribed opioid use—I mentioned that.

Now, I say that in this context because we are amending the Misuse of Drugs Act, but we’re doing so for a specific purpose, and that is to provide an exemption from prosecution for people who are terminally ill. I, frankly, don’t believe they are better off for that. But if they are terminally ill, where’s the harm? For those who came to us and said the principal Act should be further amended to include chronic conditions that weren’t terminal, this is a party that acts on the evidence, and the very clear evidence, including from the most recent study published in The Lancet, was that there was no benefit, no efficacy for use of that.

Louisa Wall: That’s not what we heard, though.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That’s not what we heard. The chairman of the select committee is quite right. We heard very different things. Indeed, Chlöe Swarbrick in a recent media commentary uses as evidence people’s attitudes. People’s attitudes are not evidence. The actual lived experience of those who ingest cannabis and find themselves no better off but worse off is evidence. So in the scope of this bill I think we need to be very careful not to conflate the two conversations this country is having; that is, the decriminalisation of marijuana and the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d like to speak to clause 3 and the amendment of the Misuse of Drugs Act. I find this amended bill incredibly disappointing. We had over a thousand written submissions and more than 170 oral submissions, and in that exercise, submitters bared their souls. They really did. I think everybody who attended hearings of the select committee were absolutely moved by the stories. I certainly was myself, and I appreciate that those people came in to talk to us. But after all those submissions and all of us listening to those submissions, nothing in this bill has changed.

I think it’s all about the fact that the bill was rushed, that it was about delivering on the 100-day promise, and so it didn’t really matter how weak the bill was—they had to introduce it. But the promise was to introduce a medicinal cannabis regime and, of course, this bill doesn’t. It does open the door a crack—it opens the door a crack—but that crack was resolutely slammed shut again during the select committee process. We know no more now about the shape of the promised medicinal cannabis regime than we did before we began this work. So much energy, so much effort, and so much input by so many, but nothing new has been achieved. As I’ve said, all this bill does is allow someone who’s seriously, seriously ill—in fact, someone very close to dying, and, in fact, within the 12 months for terminal illness, although I know there’s a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) following—not to be charged for the offence of possessing and using cannabis.

That’s all it does. It doesn’t help any of these very ill people to source product. It doesn’t help or provide for any of these very ill people safe medicinal quality drugs. It doesn’t help these very ill people by protecting a carer or family member that supplies the cannabis for them. So I think many of us are hugely disappointed that there have been no changes.

We believe that the New Zealand public, and certainly the thousand or so submitters, wanted to see the shape of the medicinal cannabis scheme proposed. After all that—all that—that’s what they were looking for. That’s what they felt they had been promised. But, as I said, we opened the door a crack, and when the submitters started to talk about what the regime should look like—what sort of quality products they’d like to see, the type of rules that they believe should be introduced, the rules that might keep our community safe, how we could ensure the quality of the cultivation of the plants, how we could look at the quality of processing, how we could do quality manufacturing—the discussion was shut down.

National believes that the people of New Zealand, the submitters, and the Parliament should have some say over the shape of this proposed medicinal cannabis scheme, and that’s why my colleague Dr Shane Reti introduced his bill and also SOP 178 today. That would be so that when we vote for this bill, if we do, we’re not voting blind; so we have some idea what this medicinal cannabis scheme would look like—the scheme that the door opens with this bill, but we can’t see through it.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Chair. The principal Act here, in clause 3—we’ve heard submissions from, certainly, my colleagues talking about how the purpose of the principal Act is to describe a medicinal cannabis scheme and, as the title says, medicinal cannabis extending into products. I think one of the greatest disappointments that we hear across the sector, and maybe the main reason why we are unable to support this bill, is the lack of detail. The media called it legislative laziness—that’s what they called it. It’s a bare landscape.

We have to imagine that across the House we have collaborated on other sensitive issues—and, be clear, this is a sensitive issue. We have collaborated on poverty. We are collaborating on the climate. We’ve each been able to see and scrutinise what might be in those bills. Here—nothing; another sensitive topic, and nothing. No framework, nothing. We’re going to leave it to unnamed officials for some period of time to define a framework that is very, very important. Everybody is disappointed with the absence of any sort of skeleton framework. Industry are disappointed. Their concern is that they have assets that are now sitting cold; not knowing what’s coming next, they can’t anticipate, they can’t plan. We have the medicinal cannabis community wondering, “Where am I going to get it from? Is there a dispensing mechanism? Who’s going to be able to get it for me? Will I be able to collect it myself? What if I’m too sick? What if I can’t get there?” Are there any provisions there for a carer or a carer card, as we described in some of our previous pieces of work, to help people who might be too ill to be able to access medicinal cannabis products themselves—nothing.

We could have had some key areas—manufacturing maybe, licensing would have been kind of good, dispensing would have been kind of good, as well. Nothing. No guidance to the sector. No guidance to really anyone who’s involved in this domain and, to the parliamentary colleagues across the Chamber, for a topic like this that really does need parliamentary oversight.

Let’s remember we put it to the committee—that was how we fell apart. We put it to the committee, and the chair won’t disagree with me that all we asked for were these sorts of details to come back to the House. It was all we asked for. We even sent away the clerks to say, “How do we do that?”, and they came back and said, “Oh, it’s called an affirmative instrument.” Yep, that’s what we’re looking for: some detail from the scheme. We have some knowledge that we could put together with others across the House and we could work out some framework that could have some degree of public scrutiny that could stand here tonight. The answer came back: no.

And so what that “no” means is: it’s blank. As this bill progresses through, it will not change from being blank, and for a topic that’s this important, that really is not acceptable. And, furthermore, that is probably one of the main reasons why the National Party will not be supporting its progress further. We need more detail. We could have lived with even a framework—a skeleton framework, probably—but no, nothing. So it’s with great disappointment that we have to sort of understand that there’s nothing there. The work wasn’t done. I think the media’s reference to it as legislative laziness is correct, and the Minister may want to put some sort of items in the discussion here that we could understand.

It’s pleasing that the Supplementary Order Paper that he has actually starts talking about manufacturing, actually starts talking about cultivation, but they’re just words. That’s not enough. Tell us a bit more. Where can you grow it? We’ve had those discussions. We met with industry. We’ve been informed by what industry had told us. We can help with that. We know what industry is thinking around what might work for locations, and we may still be able to help with that, but in a framework that everyone around the House can agree to—that the public, that the House, that the medicinal cannabis community can see and scrutinise.

That’s the sort of work we wanted to do. That’s what we were putting on the table with the select committee, and the Government came back saying, “No. We haven’t done the work, so we have nothing to scrutinise. The answer is no. It will be a blank board, and unnamed officials over an undefined period of time will tell New Zealanders what a medicinal cannabis scheme looks like, will tell industry what it looks like.”

Now, I have no doubt there’ll be some advisory committees that are already terminally late. So, while we’re talking terminal, the proposed medicinal advisory committee was due to have started well before now, and hasn’t. So it is with some disappointment—extreme disappointment, in fact—that we have no details further on this scheme. We were willing to collaborate but the Government said no.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I’m going to take one more call, but I’m going to be really strict on this. We’ve strayed away from the clause 3 debate, so I would ask Nicola Willis, when I call you, please—the clause 3 debate.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to take this, my first call on the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill, here in this committee stage. Of course, right now we are debating clause 3, which relates to the principal Act, and it is significant that we in Parliament tonight are working on legislation that would amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. That is a piece of legislation that has significant ramifications for New Zealanders in terms of what is and isn’t classed as illegal activity with regard to the choices they make about using drugs.

Now, the fact that we are amending that principal Act and that we are taking this significant step also highlights the opportunity that’s lost, because in taking this significant step in amending the Misuse of Drugs Act, we have an opportunity before us. The opportunity is to introduce a real medicinal cannabis regime. I support the introduction of a genuine medicinal cannabis regime in New Zealand, but, of course, in amending the Act tonight, that’s not what we’re going to get. We are going to get, of course, some of the way there in introducing an exception and a statutory defence for terminally ill people, but what we are not going to get is a detailed regime that would allow a setting of standards for products manufactured, imported, and supplied—to have a genuine medicinal cannabis regime.

Of course, the opportunity lost here is that we’re all here to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act. In fact, on both sides of the Chamber tonight we have agreement that that Act should be amended and that, actually, things have moved along. Our understanding of the science and our understanding of the impact that medicines and drugs can have on people who are suffering from illnesses have moved along. Our community is asking many of us to take steps when it comes to the Misuse of Drugs Act, and so it’s unfortunate that the extensive work that has been done by Dr Shane Reti to develop a genuine regime for the introduction of medicinal cannabis has been ignored by the Minister of Health, in particular, and by his colleagues opposite. Instead, we’ve had the argument that in amending this Act, we should leave open broad, sweeping powers for a Minister at a later date to introduce a regulatory regime.

We had the Minister earlier say that this was appropriate as it would allow for experts to have their say on those regulations. I put it to you that in amending the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, we have to be aware that this is the work of Parliament and that Parliament is the proper entity to be setting those rules. I would argue that this is not an area that it’s appropriate simply for regulations to be at play but that Parliament itself—the democratically elected representatives of this House—should be giving clear guidance on what our community and what our society thinks the framework for a medicinal cannabis regime should be. I think we are all derelict in our duty if we stand here tonight and say, “Yes, we’re prepared to take the significant step of amending the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, but we won’t convey to the New Zealand public what the detail of a medicinal cannabis regime would be in the future.”

I’d put it to you that, in fact, it is quite possible to reflect expert opinion. It is quite possible to think about what that licensing regime would look like. It is quite possible to determine the rules around where manufacturing could take place, under what circumstances, and for whom, and that is proven by the fact that Dr Shane Reti has done it. He has worked alongside experts. He has travelled overseas. He has studied other jurisdictions where there are effective medicinal cannabis regimes. He has put that work together into a substantive proposal, and the Minister, who’s smiling at me now, knows that the truth is he’s rejected that work. He’s rejected that work, and that is a missed opportunity because here we are: we are in agreement—Labour, National, the Greens—that we should amend the Misuse of Drugs Act.

This is a significant moment in our Parliament. You had the opportunity to be a statesman, Minister—sorry, not you. The Minister had the opportunity to be a true statesman and say, “This isn’t actually about political point-scoring; this is about getting an enduring framework for medicinal cannabis in this country—something that New Zealanders have asked for, something that many members across the House have worked on, something that experts all over New Zealand have contributed thinking on, and something that is quite within the power of Parliament to put forward. Instead, he said, “No, no. We’ll put that on the never-never. We’ll put that on the ‘We’ll develop it later.’ ” Another working group, another “Leave it to someone else to develop the regulations.”, and I think that’s a shame. I think that that belittles the Parliament, because we could do this within this bill, and yet that is left wanting. I’m disappointed.

KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 Section 2 amended (Interpretation)

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): 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.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): 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.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): 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.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): 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.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): 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.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): 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.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: 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!

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: 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.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): 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.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): 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?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): 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.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): 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.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): 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.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): 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.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand National 55.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 178 in the name of Dr Shane Reti to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 177 in the name of the Hon David Clark to clause 4 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): 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.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): 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.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 4 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 64

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Clause 4 as amended agreed to.

New Clause 4A New section 2A inserted (Meaning of CBD product)

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): This is a very technical clause, and I fear that if I don’t speak up, no one will. This new provision contains the amended definition of “CBD product” allowing specified substances up to 2 percent of the cannabidiol (CBD) and specified substance content, where those substances have been defined as THCs and substances related to THCs that are capable of producing more than a minor psychoactive effect. It’s a technical clause but an important one.

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

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5 Section 7 amended (Possession and use of controlled drugs)

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Clause 5 is now quite different in the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that the Minister has introduced from that which was introduced and which the select committee dealt with. Now, this is what we’ve now euphemistically called “the terminal exemption”, and it’s this that—despite the fact that the purpose of the bill is actually to create a framework for the production and supply of legitimate medicinal cannabis products, we seem to have been dominated by the question of whether or not there should be an exemption from prosecution for those who use illicit substances. Indeed, it is an amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act, and so this is quite significant.

We have debated already in the committee of the whole House the change from the definition of “terminal illness” to that of “palliation” in clause—I think—4, so I’m not going to relitigate that. But what the amendment that the Minister has introduced does is quite a significant change in terms of the judicial process, and I would, I think, benefit, and the committee would benefit, from the Minister explaining what is a semantic but potentially quite significant change. When the bill was introduced and considered by the select committee, clause 5 at (2A) states that a person who contravenes the Misuse of Drugs Act “does not commit an offence” if they have a terminal illness. Now, not only have we changed the definition of “terminal illness” to “palliation”, as described in the previous clause, we’ve now actually deleted, by the SOP, subclauses (1), (2), and (2A) from the bill, and what we are left with is an amended subclause (3). Rather than use the terms “does not commit an offence”, subclause (3A) now says that the defendant has a defence if at the time of the possession or use the defendant has been diagnosed with a condition that requires palliation.

Now it may seem a little bit pedantic, but actually—and I’m no lawyer; I’m not good enough to be a lawyer. I’m a humble chartered accountant—just a lawmaker now. But it seems to me that there is a quite significant difference between “does not commit an offence” and “has a defence”. So I would be grateful for an understanding, and I think the committee would benefit from an understanding, of why this change was made, because it appears, on the face of it, to be quite a significant change. I’m sure there’s a reason for it—to take out subclauses (1), (2), and (2A), and simply amend (3A). “No offence” has been changed to “has a defence”. So what that suggests to me is there seems to be a tightening, not a softening, of the provision that makes it clear that even if the person is terminally ill, they are still committing an offence, but they have a defence.

Now, I might be barking up a tree, but I think this is quite significant, and in order to inform the future debate on this clause, I’d be grateful if the Minister could explain the nature of that change.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call the Hon David Clark. Just as I do, I just remind the Government whip—I can’t find anything in Standing Orders about whistling, but I do think it is an interjection, and he was actually walking around making that interjection, and I’d ask him to cease.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): To clarify and respond to the member’s question, the change is simply moving the exemption to section 8 of the Act. That offence was always there.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, clause 5 very clearly starts to talk to loose-leaf. We can see that it actually talks about smoking, it talks about smokes, and it then leads itself to a topic under the terminal exception and statutory defence of smoked loose-leaf. There can be no doubt that this is included in this bill. We know this for any number of reasons. First of all, written parliamentary question 489 to the Minister: “Will terminally ill cannabis users be able to possess and use cannabis leaf under the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill?” The Minister replied: “The Bill will not restrict the exception and defence to the possession and use of cannabis to any particular dosage form.”

Secondly, in July, the Hon Paula Bennett asked the acting Prime Minister and New Zealand First leader in the House: does he support loose-leaf cannabis being available through the Government’s medicinal cannabis bill? He declined to refute that. Her next question was the same: does he support loose-leaf cannabis being available through the Government’s medicinal cannabis bill? And again he declined. If there was any further doubt, we see, in other clauses, that we are authorising, or being asked to authorise, utensils such as pipes. So absolutely no question: the temporary terminal exception and statutory defence authorises loose-leaf cannabis.

The question we have, and I’d challenge the Minister on this, is: if a patient is started on smoked loose-leaf cannabis under the temporary terminal exception, and the exception then concludes, and the patient has had relief, will the medicinal cannabis scheme stop smoked loose-leaf cannabis? I would contend that that’s unethical. If you do a drug trial and a person benefits from the drug, you can’t stop the drug. Therefore, the contention is that smoked loose-leaf cannabis will extend into the full medicinal cannabis scheme, and the National Party cannot and will not support that.

The issues of smoked loose-leaf are quite clear: we’re concerned for quality, we’re concerned for decontaminants, we have some concerns about normalising loose-leaf in the community—the referendum will speak to that. Access and affordability have been a concern in our hands. We spoke to that across several parts of a medicinal cannabis scheme. Some would say that medicinal cannabis products have a slow dose time response curve that might be a matter of hours, say, for tablets. Correct, and smoked loose-leaf may give you that, but so will vaped solutions. In fact, if we look overseas at New York and their medicinal cannabis scheme, they forbid smoked loose-leaf; so there’s certainly international precedent for this.

I need to make it very clear, and we should have clear visibility on this, that New Zealand First is supporting loose-leaf cannabis—be in no doubt. On several grounds, New Zealand First is supporting loose-leaf cannabis. We raised this specifically with New Zealand First at 8.15 on 22 May in a formal meeting with Fletcher Tabuteau, where I formally met with him for the purpose of discussing their party’s approval of loose-leaf cannabis in the medicinal cannabis scheme. I gave him all the documents from the Health Committee that it was appropriate to give him, all the written questions that showed smoked loose-leaf was permissioned in the terminal exception and was highly likely to be permissioned in the following medicinal cannabis scheme. At the end of that meeting, Clayton Mitchell came and indicated to Fletcher that he had a following meeting next door. Be in no doubt, New Zealanders who are watching this, and the Hansard records it: New Zealand First is supporting loose-leaf cannabis both in the terminal exception and, as I’ve explained, through to the medicinal cannabis scheme.

The questions I then have for the Minister are these: again I reiterate, patients who are started on smoked loose-leaf under the terminal exception who receive relief—will the full-blown medicinal cannabis scheme stop the smoking of loose-leaf cannabis for those patients? And the second related question: can the Minister promise that a full-blown medicinal cannabis scheme—and here’s the pity of not knowing any framework or anything about that—will not have smoked loose-leaf? I think those are very important questions for New Zealanders that answer the question that member Swarbrick raised about decriminalisation or legalisation by stealth. This is a clear example of that legalisation of cannabis by stealth under the guise of medical need. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d just like to take a brief call on clause 5, which, as we know, outlines the defence for possessing and using illicit cannabis. I just want to talk to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 177 that the Minister’s put forward and the impacts of the changes on that.

As we’ve sort of canvassed already, we are proposing that we’re changing the definition, which was previously a terminal illness where a patient was likely to die within 12 months. What that SOP is proposing is that we take that broader approach to palliation, and it’s a person requiring palliation “if, in the opinion of a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner, the person has an advanced progressive life-limiting condition and is nearing the end of their life.”

Just talking to the point that Mr Doocey was making about how do we define that, well, I think it comes back to “in the opinion of a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner”. It comes back to medical expertise, as opposed to having some broad definition, so I don’t think there are any concerns around that. The reason why we did broaden it was because we were getting that feedback from select committee—people with, say, neurological conditions that felt like their condition wasn’t recognised under the previous definition, so we did move in response to that.

But the other question we’ve had raised is, is it still too narrow? And a range of people have submitted that chronic pain and other conditions—it should be broadened out much more loosely. We actually queried some advice at select committee about that and why we couldn’t broaden it, and I guess the feedback that came back was that what you’re weighing up is that compassionate approach versus—what you’re actually then otherwise saying is that you’ve got a defence for using illicit cannabis, where that cannabis isn’t created with any safety standards; we haven’t got any idea of what the THC component is in that cannabis, so you could have any concentration of psychoactive properties in that cannabis, and the person using it wouldn’t know until they experienced the effects. We do know that some of those effects can be anxiety, psychosis, etc. So it was about weighing up the potential benefits versus the harms, and that’s why the call was made.

But the problem we’re hearing a lot is that there seems to be a bit of confusion. What we’re not talking about in that definition is who can be prescribed medicinal cannabis, because this bill in no way changes what a doctor can prescribe. A doctor can always still prescribe, as under the current regime, medical cannabis for any condition that they feel the patient may benefit from. So people can still access cannabis at the moment by prescription for any condition, not just those with a palliative condition.

The issue, though—and this is what this bill is trying to do, and will do—is it’s trying to make products available that doctors can then prescribe safely, having that security that they know that it’s produced to an effective standard. So what we’re talking about here is just a temporary measure that we’re putting in place until such time as that medical cannabis scheme is up and running. Just taking the point that—

Chris Bishop: How long’s that going to take?

Dr LIZ CRAIG: Well, what we’ve said is that we’ll put those regulations in place within one year.

But the other issue we’ve got is that Mr Woodhouse was talking about the fact that we needed a sunset clause. What we’ve got in the bill at the moment—and it was there right the way through select committee—is an undertaking that this would be reviewed within a 24-month period so that the legislation would be reviewed, in terms of the statutory defence, because it was only ever a temporary measure.

So, as Minister Clark was saying, what we’ve got is a two-year period where we then review it, and then, if the scheme is up and running, that defence may well be looked at and removed. But we’ve got to have the regime in place to have that, so that people can access medical cannabis that is produced to a high standard. Therefore, I support the SOP that’s being proposed by the Minister. Thank you.

MATT KING (National—Northland): Thank you, Madam Chair—didn’t have to work so hard this time. Look, this bill is a throw-together, lazy shambles of a bill. We’ve done a lot of work on our bill, and this Government could’ve taken on board some of the pearlers that we’ve got in our bill—

Kieran McAnulty: Clause 5.

MATT KING: —and made a really good piece of legislation.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Thank you—that’s my job.

MATT KING: But I see that you have the carve-out for requiring palliation, and you have to be certified by a medical practitioner or a nurse practitioner. I mean, we understand all that, but this is just going to allow smoking of cannabis, consumption of cannabis. It just provides a defence against consumption and possession of cannabis. So it’s too simplistic, and it’s de facto decriminalisation, so why don’t you just come out and say it? We’ll just call it and let’s have a referendum on it if that’s what you’re going to do, because that’s, effectively, what the bill will do.

I say this because the police—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Order! Don’t bring me into it. I’m not saying that.

MATT KING: I’m sorry, Madam Chair—nothing to do with you, sorry. It’s the good people across the Chamber there.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: She is from Gisborne!

MATT KING: Ha, ha! You’re from Gisborne; I’m from Northland—we know all about this drug!

I say this because I find the police will find this fraught with difficulties. You stop a car full of people with cannabis in it; one person produces a certificate, and then all the others get off. That is, effectively, what you’re going to have: a lot of unintended consequences. So I can tell you now that police will steer a wide berth because of this, and it will be de facto decriminalisation. If that’s what’s intended, let’s come out and have a referendum on it.

We’ve lodged a member’s bill. It has a comprehensive medicinal cannabis regime put together by the Hon—not the honourable yet, but Shane Reti. He’s done a lot of work in this area, and it’s a clear, workable alternative—an alternative that can be enforced and policed and I think the Government bill fails on both these tests. It’s only minor improvements. It’s also totally silent on how a medicinal cannabis regime would operate in practice.

Now, how do the people that have the certificates, that are near the end of their life—and we’re not denying treatments to people nearing the end of their lives; our medicinal cannabis regime would have brought that out. We’re not denying that—I’m for that—but how does that person obtain that cannabis lawfully? They’ve got a defence if they have it in their possession, but they’ve got to commit an offence to get it, and the person selling to them is committing an offence, so how does that take place? And what happens if the police come upon a transaction taking place? So none of that’s been thought through. So the buyer produces a certificate and walks, and the seller gets locked up for possession for supply, or possession, or supplying, which is a relatively serious offence. So how does that work? This bill doesn’t cover any of that.

The Government has said that it will work out the details later, and, as the previous speaker said, they will think through the controls and the consequences later and talk about it later—maybe a year from now, maybe two years. So that’s typical of this Government. It’s not acceptable. We’ve got a comprehensive alternative. I don’t understand why the good people across the Chamber cannot get together with our people—Shane Reti and co.—and work out a good bill that will have everyone supporting it, and we’ll all be happy, and the good people out in TV land will be cheering as well.

We’ve met with the majority of the people in the Health Committee, and we’ve talked to them. We’re fine-tuning and we’ve got feedback. I know there’s a lot of confusion out there about cannabis. It means different things to different people. For some people, it’s loose-leaf cannabis; to others it’s cannabis-based products that have undergone rigorous testing. Our regime is more the second lot. We’re not for loose-leaf cannabis. I don’t see how you could operate having possession of loose-leaf cannabis—it’s not going to work.

So this bill is too simplistic, poorly thought-out, and a lazy piece of legislation with many unintended consequences. This Government has said that they would be bipartisan with things, and they’re always asking us to come and work with them. We did that with the mental health thing—we tried. We’re just imploring—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Now we need to get back to clause 5.

MATT KING: Sorry, Madam Chair. We’re imploring the Government to work with us, take on board some of these things, and let’s get a good bill together, and let’s all vote on it and pass it through unanimously. Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank also the Minister David Clark for his explanation of my question to the change in clause 5 and the difference between “does not commit offence” to “has a defence”. In fact, his answer was that it’s being brought into section 8, and, indeed, that’s occurring in clause 5A, which is the new exemption from section 6 and 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act where a person has a certificate already, but, actually, that’s not what the base clause 5 was doing. It was providing for some kind of defence against prosecution in an ex post facto situation.

I’m not going to ask the Minister to re-explain that, the difference—which is still in section 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. It’s still a change—“does not commit an offence” to “has a defence”—because in subclause (3), it’s still an amendment to section 7(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act, not section 8. However, the point I’m making is that that actually underscores the confusion of all of this, which is that we have very clear reasons for prosecution that this bill is going to cut right across. When I talked about it, I think, in clause 1, I described it as an island of immunity in an archipelago of offending, where the growing, the selling, the distribution, and the transportation of these illegal substances is still unlawful under the Misuse of Drugs Act, but the person who gets that when they’re terminally ill won’t be prosecuted or will have a defence.

Now, that is about as untidy as it gets. It is a completely nonsensical provision, particularly one which is unnecessary, because police told us that they’re not out there rounding up, arresting, and jailing terminally ill people who are smoking a joint. It just isn’t happening. But what they did say in answer to my question in the Health Committee—which was that, OK, so the poor person with stage four cancer who is dying with less than 12 months to live isn’t going to be prosecuted, but might the police be interested in finding out where they got the substance from, that it might be part of a supply chain that is part of a much more sinister offence against the public? The answer that Mr Chambers gave us was that, well, yeah, he couldn’t rule that out, the possibility that, indeed, the police would be interested and would nevertheless question the person who has been caught with these substances. So rather than being less pursued by police, once this provision is changed, the terminally ill person could be more pursued by police, which underscores what a nonsense this terminal exemption is.

Despite all of that, we had our caucus in a position where it would be prepared to swallow not a big rat—a relatively small mouse—if the greater good could be served, and that was a better framework for the licensing of medicinal cannabis, but we didn’t get it. Now, we’re going to talk about that in, perhaps, the clause after next, clause 7—the famous 59 words, which, apparently, is all that’s needed to tell the health authorities and Medsafe how to go out and set up a groundbreaking new regime.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, could we debate that when we get to it?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yeah—well, it’s a condition of agreement with this clause, the terminal exemption clause, that we actually had a bill that was going to do what it intended to do, which was to create a safe regime. We could’ve lived with this provision, but it needed to do what the preamble to the bill and the general policy statement said, which was that it’s intended as a compassionate measure until affordable, quality products are available.

Now, the corollary to that is that when affordable, quality products are available, the terminal exemption would be redundant, but as Dr Craig points out and makes the point that I’ve been making all along, the bill doesn’t do that. The bill provides for a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act in two years, in respect of this provision, which means what? It means we have to come back when we’re in Government in two years’ time, despite Dr Clark’s—Madam Chair? Well, I’ll seek the call, Madam Chair, even if the bell doesn’t go. Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Oh, I beg your pardon—I beg your pardon.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Thank you. Even if—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, I haven’t called. I do have to allow the Minister to take a call.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): There was a substantive point raised about four speeches ago, in Dr Reti’s last contribution, which I do think is worth responding to. I’ve been collecting substantive points as we’ve gone through the debate. It was in part addressed by Dr Liz Craig’s contribution, and that is—

Chris Bishop: No, it wasn’t.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The member says, “No, it wasn’t.” He doesn’t even know what the point is that I’ve raised, which is a little inane, but anyway—let’s move on.

Dr Reti did raise, I think, an interesting question about loose-leaf cannabis. He wondered whether the scheme would be extended—sorry. Will loose-leaf cannabis be allowed in the scheme if it is shown to be producing benefit for palliative care? I think that was a legitimate question to ask. To clarify, the scheme is concerned about quality of product, not the form. So loose-leaf cannabis can be taken by vaporiser, as I’m sure Dr Reti knows, under the scheme on script if it is considered the patient may benefit. The nuances around that could be dealt with via a review, which is, indeed, provided for in my version of the bill, as opposed to—I guess, it’s an argument against Dr Reti’s own Supplementary Order Paper, which suggests that the Parliament should do that, because it would require expertise and expert opinion to feed into it. So I just wanted to cover that off, because I think this is a point worth covering off.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to thank the Minister of Health for that clarification. As I understood it, what we heard was that, yes, smoked loose leaf—when you said that’s agnostic to form—would be permissible or available in the full medicinal cannabis scheme, and that’s something that we’ll all need to think about and that New Zealanders will need to think about also.

Clause 5 talks about certification as well, and I’m very interested in certification because I think it’s a great example of the legislative laziness of this bill. So not only are doctors and nurse practitioners going to be diagnosing palliation, and whether it’s advanced, progressive, life-threatening, or near the end of life, but they’re also going to be doing these certificates. They’re going to certify. Well, that’s kind of interesting. What does that look like? I know, why don’t we ask the people who are going to certify how they would go about doing that whether that work flow is actually manageable?

So I asked Minister Clark exactly that in a written question several weeks ago: “What communication, if any, has the Minister or his Ministry had with the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners … around certification requirements for the terminal exception and statutory defence under the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill,”—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Order! Dr Reti, isn’t that clause 5A—the certification?

Dr SHANE RETI: Does clause 5 also not talk about—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’m just looking at it, and it’s talking about a certificate from a medical practitioner or a nurse practitioner.

Dr SHANE RETI: Correct—I’m talking about the same.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): So we are still on clause 5.

Dr SHANE RETI: Oh yes, indeed—I’m talking about how that certificate might eventuate and who’s going to do it—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That’s right.

Dr SHANE RETI: —and how’s the practitioner going to do it—correct.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That’s right. So that would really come under clause 5A.

Dr SHANE RETI: More than clause 5?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yes.

Dr SHANE RETI: OK, Madam Chair. Thank you.

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 5 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 5 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 64

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Clause 5 as amended agreed to.

New clause 5A Section 8 amended (Exemptions from sections 6 and 7)

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to recommence the discussion on certification in which, if you recall, I was setting the framework that the bill is absent on this, and I was saying that it serves as a good example of the legislative laziness that the media have coined around the medicinal cannabis scheme that this bill authorises and that the Minister is proposing.

I was making the point that, already, not only have medical practitioners struggled with defining and diagnosing palliation but, mysteriously, medical practitioners and nurse practitioners are to certify the same, which is that the person who requires palliation may procure, possess, consume, or smoke, etc. It seems to me that the first thing you would do is understand the work flow for this, and you would reach out to those who are actually going to do the certifying and say, “How would you do that?”, and that’s what we did.

Progress to be reported presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported progress on the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill, no progress on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill, no progress on the Earthquake Commission Amendment Bill, and no progress on the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill.

Report adopted.

Sitting suspended from 9.59 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

WEDNESDAY, 5 DECEMBER 2018

(continued on Thursday, 6 December 2018)

Bills

Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill

In Committee

New clause 5A Section 8 amended (Exemptions from sections 6 and 7) (continued)

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to speak to clause 5A of the bill this morning, a clause that talks about certification, primarily, from a medical practitioner or a nurse practitioner around the definition of “palliation”, which we’ve discussed previously, which clearly has some issues as well.

Now, it might seem easy to write into a bill, “You will have a medical practitioner or a nurse practitioner certify.” The workflow to that is complex, and it’s really important we understand the workflow in as much as if we look at the Australian scheme, for example, that’s one of the reasons why the Australians have failed. They didn’t do well on the workflow. Amongst other things, they require two certifying medical practitioners, and that’s been a substantial hindrance to them. So understanding the workflow to certification is really important, and we need a lot of detail around how that might happen. But again, I think this clause is a really good example of what the media have framed as legislative laziness around this bill and the vacuum—the void—that sits in the lack of detail.

So we’re saying that medical practitioners and nurse practitioners will certify whether a person has palliation. How does that actually work? Well probably a good starting point would be to go and ask GPs and nurse practitioners and say, “How might we do this?” So in written question No. 29033 (2018) a few weeks ago, I posed this to the Minister: “What communications, if any, has the Minister or his Ministry had with the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners … around certification requirements for the terminal exception and statutory defence under the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill …?” His reply was, “I am advised that no communications on this subject have occurred between myself and the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners or the Ministry … and the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners.” How hard could that have been to go to those people who were actually doing the certification and say, “Here’s what I’ve got in my head. How might we do that? What hurdles could befall us?”

You know, the same is going to be for the Minister of Police, because we have this issue around how we’re going to monitor how we’re going to exercise discretion or due judgment, or whatever we are going to do for people who are pulled over by police and demonstrate that they believe they have a defence under the terminal exception and statutory defence. We had police tell us this was going to be challenging for them. So, again, you’d think, “Well, why don’t we ask police what works for them? What certification might fit into the scheme?”

So written question No. 29032 a few weeks ago to the Minister of Police, the Hon Stuart Nash, asked: “What communications, if any, has the Minister or his Ministry had with the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners … around certification requirements for the terminal exception and statutory defence under the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill …?” Here’s the reply from the Minister of Police: “Neither I nor Police have had any communications with the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners … around certification requirements for the terminal exception and statutory defence”. You’d think you’d have that discussion. The workflow is hard. Get the workflow right. Things would be a lot easier just to reach out to the two main certifying bodies. “How is this going to work?” would be very useful.

Now, what we know, because we’ve done a lot of detail on the scheme—we can describe how it might actually work, and then what I want to come to in a moment is talk about how we could navigate all of this with a medicinal cannabis card. So what I want to talk to, first of all, is we know, because we’ve done a lot of work on it, that we can make this easy for GPs, particularly, to certify. How you’d do that is this: there’s a mechanism on every GP’s desktop where if you want to do what’s called a special authority, you enter the patient’s name, all their details are lifted out of the file, you enter whatever you’re requiring, and it automatically goes to the ministry. It’s called a special authority. This would work well for a medicinal cannabis scheme. This would work well for certification. It would achieve a lot of our goals, and it just demonstrates the workflow. When you think about it, GPs could do this. I’ve spoken with them; their hurdle is like the Australians had: if it’s too cumbersome in its compliance, they just won’t do it. So we’ve thought through the workflow that would make certification happy.

What we’ve also thought through, and I want to come to the topic now, is a medicinal cannabis card, because it gets past the issues we’re talking about around certification, around what sort of certificate you’re actually going to produce. We produced a Supplementary Order Paper. That isn’t sitting on the Table, as it was indicated to us that there may be other mechanisms to discuss this. Our thinking is to have a medicinal cannabis card, which a large number of jurisdictions have—a large number of jurisdictions have. What happens here, and it partly draws on some of the work that member Swarbrick brought to the Table several months ago—certainly earlier this year—around the issue of the complexity of GPs deciding what’s in or out. In our hands, what we decided was a GP, on the advice of a specialist panel, would decide eligibility. A GP is actually just saying a person is eligible or not; they don’t actually have to say “Yes, I’m going to give you medicinal cannabis. Here’s the dose—whatever, whatever.”, and that was part of what member Swarbrick brought in her bill to sort of help GPs get over some of the hurdles they have around medicinal cannabis. Certainly, all the feedback we’ve had is that that would work.

I just want to go over that again. Eligibility criteria for the scheme decided by experts—we’ve already had this discussion with the Minister previously. We shouldn’t be here in the Chamber defining what the criteria are, and all we ask is of the certifying GP or nurse practitioner, as this clause is requesting, is they’re just saying that, yes, this person is eligible, not actually prescribing the dose form or anything else. We think this would substantively help the certification process. What we also discuss around a medicinal cannabis card is that the details then go to the ministry, who issue a card. That card can then be presented to a dispensing pharmacy. It can then be presented to police if you should be pulled over. Furthermore, we also talk about a carer card, recognising those people who may be too frail to travel.

Now, there is a huge appetite for a medicinal cannabis card in the population, in as much as an omnibus survey that’s been conducted by Horizon Research, soon to be published, asked exactly this question. What the preliminary results show is that the card is well supported by New Zealanders: well over 50 percent are in support and agreement of a medicinal cannabis card that would resolve the certification issues that we’re talking about here in clause 5A—a medicinal cannabis card instead of some nebulous sort of paper that the Minister is suggesting, that we don’t know, and that he’s had no discussion on with any of the actual certifying bodies. If you ask who might be opposed to that, well, the survey also showed that only 17.9 percent said, “No, a medicinal cannabis card wouldn’t work for us.”

So we have a solution. So what we’re saying is the certification as it stands in the Minister’s hands, as it’s written in clause 5A, has a lot of flaws and the workflow, in particular, may be enough to bring the whole scheme down, both the terminal exception and the medicinal cannabis scheme—again, I’d use the example of poor workflow in the Australian scheme. We created a solution. Our solution was a medicinal cannabis card. The access to that was through the special authority software mechanism that GPs have, and we have run this past the sector and have some agreement and feedback with them. What I’m also presenting is evidence that the New Zealand public is in support of a medicinal cannabis card.

So the challenge I’d put to the Minister is: why have there been no discussions with the main certifiers? Clause 5A talks about certification. Why have there been no discussions? Is he concerned that the workflow may be so much of a hurdle that the scheme falls over? Will he consider other certification mechanisms, such as special authority through GP software and a medicinal cannabis card? I think if we could have some answer to that, that would be most enlightening. Again, it stands to our underlying platform that there’s just not enough detail in this bill. Thank you.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Firstly, I’ll address briefly the certifying issue, and then I’ll clarify for the House what this clause is about. Dr Reti has raised the issue of how the certifying process would work and has managed to speak to a number of Supplementary Order Papers that were ruled out of order in the House, carefully under the guise of talking about the workflow and so on.

This will be the subject of consultation as the regulations are developed. Dr Reti has obviously talked to a few clinicians, as have I, about how this might work and has developed a thesis. What is important, in my view, is that there is actually a proper consultation on the regulations, that we ask the professions for their judgment, the experts for their judgment about how best this should work, and develop a mature view on how best to make this work. He doesn’t mention nurse practitioners, which are explicitly outlined in here. I don’t think his proposal even considered nurse practitioners.

But the underlying point is that when it comes to how the process will work, there will be a full consultation process to ensure the regulations are fit for purpose, and that’s how good legislation and regulation is developed. It’s not about parliamentarians coming forward with the thesis after having spoken to a few GPs, though that would be a good starting point. Dr Reti’s starting point is, you know, worthy of itself in that respect.

What I would say about clause 5A, though, more generally, just to clarify for the House, is that the provision we are debating now is a provision that moves the exception provision for people requiring palliation to be able to possess and use cannabis to section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, which would make the location of the exception consistent with other similar provisions set out in section 8 of the principal Act. Essentially, what we’re doing here with this clause is making the Act easier to navigate and understand. So this clause is really about consistent drafting—that is the purpose of this clause. It’s not really a great substantive debate, as I see it, but I did want to address the issues Dr Reti raised.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the Minister’s clarification on that. I did hear, I think, him say in respect of the licensing regime and details like the card that there would be a comprehensive consultation process, and that that’s how good law is made. I would disagree, actually. That’s how lazy law is made, because we are the lawmakers, and what we are doing with this bill is we are delegating the responsibility for creating a groundbreaking new regime entirely to people who are unelected officials. Actually, one of the things that we would be doing as a party if we had confidence that we could get our two really important—I don’t want to call them bottom lines, but they are—bottom lines across the line, and they are a sunset clause on the terminal exemption and much greater detail about the licensing regime in the bill, then we would avoid the need for coming back, because Parliament would have scrutinised what that framework would have done—it would have done so this morning—and we would have a much better framework in place.

So I just want to reiterate where we’re at now. In respect of clauses 5, 5A, and 6, it’s really important that we put a time limit, as the Government has said in its explanatory note is the purpose, and, secondly, that we have more detail around the licensing regime. We’ll come to that later on. Now, Dr Liz Craig talked last night about the reason why the end date for this clause is not necessary by referring members to clause 8—the fact that there is going to be a review. It’s not a review of this clause. It doesn’t even specifically mention the terminal exemption; it just says there’s going to be a review of the Act two years later and that it should be concluded within 12 months. That is an entirely insufficient response to concerns by my party and the public that this is a stalking horse for the decriminalisation of cannabis. There has to be an end date because that’s, indeed, what the purpose of this clause is.

Now, I want to ask the Minister about a reconciliation between this and the licensing regime. I may have missed it last night, so it will be necessary for the Minister to clarify this point for me. It’s very important. That is on the question of whether the licensing regime, and the lack of detail means that we can’t rule this in or out yet by the 59 words in the initial bill—whether, indeed, any of the approved medicinal products that will be produced under the licensing regime could be loose leaf and smoked. Yeah, and the Minister is nodding, and I did miss it last night, so I do beg his indulgence, because it goes to the heart of the question that I have, which is, respectfully, how will one tell the difference between whether a product being ingested is an illicit substance under the Misuse of Drugs Act or a legal substance under the licensing regime that this bill would create? Indeed, it’s going to be really hard to tell the difference, and what that could potentially do is create a criminal matter—a Crimes Act matter or a Misuse of Drugs Act matter—to a prescribing technicality.

Actually, again, if loose leaf is part of the licensing regime, we are definitely—definitely—in this House this morning considering the decriminalising of illicit cannabis, because it seems to me that it will be impossible for a police officer to act on the smoking of cannabis when the defence is no longer then “Well, I have an exemption because I’m terminally ill”. It’s going to be “Well, I got a prescription from my doctor”. They’ll say, “Well, OK, show us the prescription.”, and he’ll say, “Well, I haven’t got it, because I used it.” They’ll say, “Well, we’ll go to your pharmacist.”, and he’ll say, “Well, actually, I didn’t quite tell the whole truth. I borrowed a prescription from my mate”—or the output of that prescription—“because I, too, was feeling like I needed some medicine.”

Now, I’ve borrowed Voltaren; I’ve lent Voltaren. It was a prescription medicine, and it’s probably not the best thing to do, but it’s not a hanging offence. We could be normalising loose-leaf cannabis to become a medicine in the same way that an illicit drug could be ingested. So I think this distinction needs to be very clearly made, because if loose leaf is going to be part of the licensing regime, this clause could not only become functionally obsolete but it could actually decriminalise cannabis use more generally.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Heamana. Tēnā koutou katoa. It’s nice to take a call on this new clause 5A, which is included in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 177, the Minister’s SOP. But I want to make the point that it actually wasn’t part of the Health Committee’s deliberations, and, in fact, it has come about through the intervention of New Zealand First. I want to acknowledge my colleague Jenny Marcroft, who is in the House today, because, in fact, it was also in response to 74 submissions that we received that actually said that the exemption should be premised on a doctor’s or nurse practitioner’s certification of palliation. So that’s really important, because the context of this particular amendment is actually all about verifying that the person who is using cannabis for a medicinal purpose is doing so because of palliation.

It’s really interesting—I’ve been listening to a lot of the debate about what palliation is. Well, in fact, our Ministry of Health in 2017 produced a palliative care action plan, and it is actually quite clear within that plan what palliation is, and I’m assuming that doctors and nurse practitioners around Aotearoa New Zealand have read it. So if people want a definition of who possibly would benefit from this particular clause: “Palliative care is for people of all ages with a life-limiting or life-threatening condition. It aims to: optimise an individual’s quality of life until death by addressing the person’s physical, psychosocial, spiritual and cultural needs; support the individual’s family and whānau and other caregivers where needed, through the illness and after death.” And, in fact, that is exactly what we heard in the Health Committee. When I look at that select committee process, we actually had, of the 1,786 submissions, 584 that dealt with the exception and statutory defence provision that, in fact, is included in this new clause 5A. Those submitters came to us because of pain. Those submitters came to us because they were experiencing cancer, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis—a number of debilitating conditions. So the responsiveness that we’ve seen within this clause, I think, must be commended.

I guess the other issue I wanted to really highlight is that the purpose of verification is to ensure that until the medicinal cannabis scheme, through regulation, has been constructed—and it will be constructed, from our perspective, with the medicinal cannabis advisory committee, whose sole purpose is to consider the current prescribing process for medicinal cannabis products and information needs for clinicians. It is incredibly important. The reason I highlight that is it seems that the other side are pre-empting what we actually believe the public deserve a right to be involved in. When I say “the public”, we are talking about health practitioners, interested parties—i.e. those who came to the select committee, those who actually are using cannabis in a medicinal manner because of their debilitating illnesses.

We heard very clearly from Māori—for example, Hāpai te Hauora when they presented—who were very clear that the composition of this medicinal cannabis advisory committee must include those that this bill is relevant to. So Māori, Pacific, the growers, clinicians—having everybody that has a vested interest in ensuring through regulation that our medicinal cannabis scheme is fit for purpose is incredibly important.

I make these points because we were really clear through our deliberations that it wasn’t for us to set regulation, and, in fact, it isn’t for Parliament to set regulations. Regulations are not done by Parliament; they’re done by and through processes such as developing this medicinal cannabis advisory committee. So if the National Party want to participate in that process, ka pai. Write a submission, be actively engaged in the next phase, but let’s be very clear that this new clause 5A is all about verifying that people who are currently using cannabis for medicinal purposes will be able to do so without prosecution. Kia ora.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Chair. There are a few questions coming from that, certainly from the previous speaker, Louisa Wall. Their empty medicinal cannabis scheme is not fit for purpose. To the Minister’s last reply—

Louisa Wall: It will be.

Dr SHANE RETI: Well, we don’t know; we can’t see it.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Members should not wander around the Chamber interjecting. Don’t do it.

Dr SHANE RETI: Thank you. To the Minister’s last reply, where he describes discussing with a few doctors, I suggest he put that to the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, if their representation is just a few doctors. I don’t think they’ll be very happy with that.

The bill talks about smoking. We’re having this discussion around smoked loose-leaf. The question I want to ask the Minister and I’d like a response to is: we’ve already heard that smoked loose-leaf will be part of a full medicinal cannabis scheme; will smoked loose-leaf be able to be smoked in public? How does that align with the Smoke-free Environments Act? I would be very interested to hear that discussion and a response from the Minister. I’ll phrase the question again: will smoked loose-leaf, under a full medicinal cannabis scheme, be able to be smoked in public? Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to, firstly, add my call to the question that Dr Shane Reti has just asked, about where, how, and in what circumstances the so-called “patient” who has been prescribed what is presently an illicit substance, somehow for their benefit, is going to be able to take that. I can imagine somebody standing outside the Westfield shopping mall smoking a joint and using the defence that they were taking their medicine. In fact, what would stop them from doing it inside the mall? Well, the answer is: well, probably a regulation.

Louisa Wall made an extraordinary comment, not on the face of it wrong, that shows the ridiculous circularity of the argument that we’re now having. She said, I think, paraphrasing, that Parliament is not involved in the development of regulations—and that is true. That is technically correct, with the corollary, obviously, that the Regulations Review Committee is there for a reason. Parliamentarians, generally, are not. But the reason we’re having this discussion is because we are debating a bill which creates a regulation-making power with absolutely no detail about what that power is. We are delegating that—and this is my point—to unelected officials, and that is not acceptable to the National Party.

We are the lawmakers, for better or worse. We stand or fall by the decisions we make in this House. It is not acceptable, even in a regulation-making framework—so, for example, there are plenty of regulations that the New Zealand Transport Agency make under transport legislation, but that transport legislation is carefully crafted to give the officials the sorts of criteria that is needed to do things like setting speed limits or things like that. We maintain, using that analogy, for example, the prerogative and the power to decide what the blood alcohol limit should be in drink-driving conditions. We don’t delegate that to officials, because it is an offence regime and it is something that, quite rightly, sits within this House.

So the whole point of the debate we’re having is not that we should have regulation-making power that we don’t have, but that we shouldn’t be delegating all of that power to unelected officials, particularly now that we know that the delegation could include this committee—what was it called? This medical advisory committee of some sort will now decide—and I think this is why the Minister is quiet, but he could clarify this for us—whether loose-leaf smoked cannabis becomes a medicine in the future. How on earth—

Louisa Wall: It already is in Canada, Michael.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —it could possibly—well, we’re not in Canada, Miss Wall; we’re in New Zealand, and we decide. In fact, we’re having a conversation this week about sovereignty, and this party believes in the sovereign decision-making ability of this Parliament. We’re not going to delegate it out to people who don’t live in this country. So the question is: how on earth—and I hope I’m right on this, because it’s actually the only saving grace, that the officials, the so-called medical advisory committee, might have greater nous than the Minister and his Government have about whether or not to delegate away this power.

I can’t for the life of me see how loose-leaf smoked cannabis could possibly be described as a medicine. It fails just about every test of dose control, of THC limit, and of the ingestion process. The blimmin method would be worse than the cure. We are heading towards smoke-free. It is a ridiculous situation.

I can’t believe we’re actually debating how loose-leaf cannabis is going to become a medicine. It should be simply ruled out, and that’s what Dr Reti’s very good member’s bill and his Supplementary Order Paper that we’ll continue to debate in clause 7—the famous 59-word clause. This is fundamental to the regime we’re setting up. Otherwise, there is no retort to the real accusation that what we are doing this morning is decriminalising cannabis. As I have said on a number of occasions, we’re going to have that conversation, but we have to be careful not to conflate the two, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Mangai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I just wanted to refer to the debate that I believe we’re supposed to be having with regard to new clause 5A.

Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Now, earlier in this year, we had an instance where that member had her laptop on the top of the table with an offensive slogan on it and it was ruled inappropriate for this Chamber. That slogan remains on the laptop and is again presented in this Chamber. I would ask you to confirm that does not happen anymore. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I thank the member for immediately remedying that issue. Thank you.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: You’re welcome, Mr Chair. That had been the reason that I’d oriented my laptop away from the member, who seemed to be offended by the slogan. I just wanted to refer to clause 5A, which obviously amends section 8. This is actually the clause which is regarding certification of a person requiring palliation, which I believe the Minister has clarified—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do apologise for the slight delay, because I was reflecting on what the member had just said—that Mr van de Molen was offended by the ruling. Now, Mr van de Molen was very clear that it wasn’t an offence. There is no advertising allowed in this House and I think that should be pointed out to Ms Sroubek, who was, frankly, challenging your ruling—

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Did you just call me Sroubek?

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Swarbrick, sorry. [Interruption]

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! I thank the Hon Michael Woodhouse. He is correct and I should have addressed the issue. I didn’t quite hear exactly what the member said, but, really a final warning: do not comment on rulings of the Chair, thank you.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Understood, Mr Chair. So, bringing back the debate to—

Hon Clare Curran: A point of clarification.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No.

Hon Clare Curran: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Sorry, Mr Chair. I’m seeking a point of clarification.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No. Points of order are not for clarification. If you have a point of order, please come to the point of order.

Hon Clare Curran: Certainly, Mr Chair. I’m trying to understand, with your permission, what the original ruling was that the member was commenting on. Was it the fact that a slogan, a party slogan, which is basically as we’ve got here, was being displayed on a computer screen?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member can read the Hansard records.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Thank you, Mr Chair. So bringing the debate back to new clause 5A, amending section 8 regarding certifying that a person requires palliation. I just wanted to clarify a few points that were raised particularly by members of the Opposition. Many times I heard referral to loose leaf. Loose leaf is not mentioned anywhere in this draft legislation in this piece of legislation. It is not mentioned anywhere at all. With regard to their concerns about the potential inclusion of it, that is something which will be discerned by the expert group that will be created with regard to the delegated powers to the Ministry of Health. I’d also like to point out that I’m somewhat confused by the National Party’s assertions that on the one hand they want to allow experts to create these regulations but on the other hand they want politicians to create these regulations. So if that could be clarified for me; that would be incredibly useful.

I would also like to state that there seems to be the need to reconcile the points around a medicinal cannabis card and certification from a medical practitioner. I also just wanted to refer to the submission from the Medical Council of New Zealand whereby they provided a statement on medical certification and stated that “As a doctor you’re expected to sign a variety of medical certificates that range in purpose from confirming sickness to certifying death and are required by receiving agencies which include employers, insurers, ACC, and Government departments.” It seems therefore to be a matter of course that doctors and nurse practitioners provide certification about the state that patients are in. Notably, this clause is not about certifying that someone can use medicinal cannabis. It is about certifying that somebody requires palliation, and that then serves as a criminal defence for using medicinal cannabis.

I also wanted to speak to the points raised around smoking in public and around the fact that we’re somehow decriminalising medicinal cannabis. I wanted to refer the members who raised such concerns to the submission of the New Zealand Police at the select committee stage, at the Health Committee, who stated that they use their discretion presently in going about prosecuting people who are using medicinal cannabis. But, notably, unfortunately the most recent statistics that we have on the consumption of cannabis in this country come from, I believe, the 2012-2013 Ministry of Health survey, which demonstrates that 400,000 New Zealanders are consuming cannabis on an annual basis and 42 percent to 43 percent of those are using it for medical purposes already. We currently have a state of play whereby this is existing in the shadows. Do we not want greater medical oversight of this situation? So I’d love to hear the member’s responses to those points.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Chair. I will respond to several of the points, noting that the clause is a very narrow one about the location of an exception to make it consistent with other similar provisions in the principal Act at section 8. But issues have been raised from the members and I wish to respond to them in good faith.

The first is the notion that people in the final stages of life who are in palliation will suddenly fill our malls with smoke. The reality is, of course, that most people who are in the final stages of life and using medicinal cannabis products are using sprays or oils—I say that for the members’ benefit—and it’s unlikely, of course, that they will be necessarily in social settings. I say that out of compassion to those who are dying. This part of the bill is really about making sure—sorry, not this part, but the part that refers to palliation really is about making sure that there is a compassionate response and that people are allowed to use illicit cannabis products in the final stages of life.

There was a substantive point raised—again, maybe not directly related to this clause but about the review—and the Hon Michael Woodhouse was making the case that delegation to experts to make the regulations was somehow lazy law. I think that’s a little bit cute, but he was making an argument and I will make the opposite argument that I think that it is better law and better regulation when we have wide consultation with the public. But I do want to push back on his suggestion that somehow in the review that would happen after two years, the main thrusts of the Act would be left out of scope. They won’t be. Implementation of the exception and defence provisions, for example, will certainly be reviewed.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Mr Chair. This is an interesting section. Unfortunately, this is the first opportunity I’ve had to speak on this bill, but I’d have to start by qualifying that, actually, I’m a very liberal person in this space. I’m not personally against the consumption of cannabis, particularly for medicinal purposes, but I think that we need a good framework to deal with it, and I don’t believe this is. I think this bill is really akin to a legislative blank cheque, and I think that’s been well covered by my colleagues to the left of me—in their seating, not necessarily in their political spectrum.

But what I don’t get in this clause 5A is it says that a person who requires palliation “may procure, possess, consume, smoke, or otherwise”. It is my understanding that the main thing for a code of ethics for a medical practitioner is to first do no harm—“Primum non nocere.” So on the basis of that, how does smoking get into this bill? If we’re talking about medicinal purposes, while I accept that things like chemotherapy certainly do do some harm, on balance, when all the evidence is looked at, while it does some harm to the body it is actually doing more good than harm, therefore it is a medicine, and therefore it is able to be used in a considered way. But when you’re smoking loose-leaf cannabis, where is the balance in this to allow it?

I’m not a medical practitioner, but I’m not aware of any medicine being delivered by smoking. My question to the Minister is: what work did he do, or his department do, to put smoking into this clause, with that main thought being what potential harms that smoking does? We spend an inordinate amount of money in New Zealand trying to get people off smoking tobacco because of the harm it does, and there’s new evidence coming out now that smoking cannabis also does quite a lot of harm to the body, so where was the work done on this to put that into this clause? I think that we as legislators also have a duty of care, and we should not be passing laws that allow people to do harm, in effect, to try and treat another harm—that is, their medicinal use for them in the first place.

Now, my colleague talked about a medicinal marijuana card or cannabis card. Certainly, the places I’m aware of that allow medicinal cannabis all require a medicinal cannabis card, and I think that it seems crazy that we wouldn’t have one. To have it handed over to a bunch of officials, who may well consult with the public—we don’t allow other regulations to be made in that source. We give a steer to those regulation-making powers so that they fit within a framework that Parliament has considered.

Now, I know one of the previous speakers said, “Well, it should go out to full public consultation.” Well, this is the first part of public consultation, with the elected members in this Chamber. It is our role to try and get something in the legislation that is fit for purpose and that gives a good steer on how this might be managed, and I don’t believe this bill does that at all. I was very, very green on this space. I didn’t really know a lot about it until Dr Reti put his particular bill up, and we all had an opportunity to learn a great deal because of the work that Dr Reti has done in this space.

As I said, I’m quite liberal on this, but I think if you’re going to make a law, you’ve got to make a good one. It should be incumbent on us to actually first do no harm, ourselves, and I think that this bill is actually leaving it wide open for us to do a lot of harm, and particularly when we are sanctioning and saying, “OK, don’t smoke tobacco. We’re spending a lot of money to stop you smoking tobacco because it’s going to do you a lot of harm, but, actually, in this case here, we’re going to send you another message: the public, please, if you’re feeling you need medicinal cannabis, it’s OK to smoke it.” We are, effectively, sending a mixed message and I don’t approve.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): There was one point in that contribution that related to the bill, and arguably not to this clause, but I will reflect for the member that, regarding the issue of smoking products, while I’ve said that that’s very uncommon in the final stages of life, this compassionate exemption that’s in the bill to allow people to consume illicit cannabis products for a limited period of time is in there because people are dying. We are not particularly worried about the harms caused from smoking should they wish to consume the products in that manner in the final stages of life. This is a compassionate clause. It’s a temporary thing until we have better supply of products. This has been well canvassed in the media and well canvassed in the House. I do urge the member to have a close look at the bill.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. Not for the first time, I agree with every word of the Minister’s last intervention, and that’s why, were we able to secure an end date to what the Government, in their own words, describe as a temporary exemption, we could support this clause. But we now know—and in his previous intervention, the Minister used what I thought was quite a revealing comment—that this part of the bill, the terminal exemption, is actually the main thrust of the change. It’s not, actually. Those were the words that the Minister used. He’s shaking his head. He might be able to take another call. I heard him say, “The main thrust of the Act”—and I’ll check the Hansard—“is the terminal exemption.” Now, that is a quite remarkable comment. I would have thought that the main thrust of that would be the licensing regime. And my criticism of the famous 59 words is predicated on the licensing regime being the main thrust of the bill.

He then went on to talk about the review and my commentary on the review being—I can’t remember the words he used, but they were unfair. Actually, I maintain that reviews are sometimes necessary and appropriate, but if the purpose is to have a finite period of time, then tighter, better legislation is to say “Put the time frame in and then come back to Parliament if that time line needs to be extended.”, not leave it open-ended, have a review, and then, maybe, at the prerogative of the Government of the day, decide to give effect to the temporary nature of this part of the Act. It’s completely around the wrong way.

Now, I want to just touch on one other thing the Minister said, and that was in respect of a somewhat, I admit, extreme example of a person who is smoking cannabis in a mall, and he did indeed say—because we are talking about people who are terminally ill—that they’re unlikely, of course, to do that. Those were his words: they might use a spray or an oil. But, indeed, we don’t make laws for the most; we make laws for every situation, and, therefore, if an Act is silent on those sorts of things, it may well give rise to those sorts of offences, not only to the Misuse of Drugs Act but to the Smoke-free Environments Act.

I’ll touch on smoking now, because Ms Swarbrick said in her intervention that there is no reference to loose leaf in this bill. Actually, that is true, but in this clause we’re talking about proceedings for an offence against stuff that is smoked, and in the next clause, new clause 5A, the tools for smoking plant material. The clear inference is that this stuff will be smoked—which is OK. As the Minister said in his last intervention, these people are at end of life. If they choose to take comfort from a psychoactive THC-based cannabis product because they believe that it eases their burden, more power to them, I say. And, indeed, as Richard Chambers, the assistant commissioner of police, has said, that’s probably happening now and they’re not being rounded up and arrested and jailed.

So we don’t have a problem of that nature, if indeed legitimising that behaviour is a temporary goal pending the development of a licensing regime. If it is, let’s just put a date on it. We’ve suggested “30 months and a day” or something. We can debate that and change it, but to create an open-ended exemption, which goes on even after the medicinal cannabis regime is in place, completely undermines the purpose.

Well, the Minister was shaking his head and he said, “Actually, it’s not the main thrust of the bill. The main thrust of the bill is to have a medicinal cannabis regime.” That’s OK. This clause, if it’s not time bound, will completely undermine the regime. Why would people switch over? Why would they? It’s a technical offence then—“Oh, well, you know, I got it from the guy down the road, but I could have equally got it from the pharmacist.” Cannabis use then becomes a technical breach of a pharmaceutical framework, not the Misuse of Drugs Act. It’s really important. And, again, Ms Swarbrick talks about, “Well, the National Party wants to write the regulations.” No, we don’t, but it’s not unusual to have a belts and braces approach to the criteria that officials then use to go away to write those regulations. And there’s a particularly good clause in here both on sunset and on non-use of loose leaf.

KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Mr Chair. I too would like to comment on Chlöe Swarbrick’s message that loose leaf is not mentioned in the bill—and it’s not. But it’s quite clear that one is able to smoke plant material. So let’s be honest about it: we are talking about loose leaf.

My point today is that I am disappointed, and I know others are disappointed, with this bill, because the general public—well, my constituents—expected medicinal cannabis to be able to be used for pain relief; to be considered—and I’m talking about the tablets and the oils and the sprays—as a regular medicine to be prescribed by a doctor or a nurse practitioner, perhaps. Ms Swarbrick talked about medicinal cannabis, that people were smoking it already—43 percent of them apparently—for medicinal or medical purposes. That seems like a very large number, and I’m not sure where she got the numbers from.

But my point is that if it’s good enough for a terminally ill person to smoke loose leaf for compassionate reasons, as the Minister has said—“for compassionate reasons”; he’s said that a couple of times—why can we not be compassionate for those who are in pain, immense pain and enduring pain, who can’t get up in the morning, are restricted to a wheelchair or a bed and find it difficult to move around the room, but are not in a terminable space—they’re not in a terminable space? So if—if; it’s a hypothetical—it’s good enough for a terminally ill person, why is it only good enough for a terminally ill person, on compassionate grounds, to smoke loose leaf? I say that this is just a foot in the door.

The problem here is that the scope—the terminally ill will, of course, be able to smoke loose leaf on compassionate grounds, and then, next week or the week after, it’ll be able to be used for someone with debilitating pain, for example.

Marja Lubeck: What’s wrong with that?

ALASTAIR SCOTT: Well, if there’s nothing wrong with that, put it in the bill. The reason you can’t put it in the bill is because the general public will not accept loose leaf generally for medicinal purposes. They will accept a regime that is tested and tried and monitored and regulated so that the doctor or nurse knows what their patient is receiving when they prescribe. To me, if you promote and accept that medicinal loose leaf is OK for compassionate grounds, then get it out there. Let the doctor do their job and prescribe the stuff on compassionate grounds. But we know that’s unacceptable to the public. We know that that would just legitimise the smoking of loose-leaf cannabis in the malls, as Mr Woodhouse has said—in the malls; on the streets—because they’ve got a back pain, they’ve got debilitating pain. And that’s why this loose-leaf option is a problem.

Compassionate grounds is not a good enough reason to allow loose leaf. Compassionate grounds—we should be using a certified, regulated, measured, and qualified tablet, oil, or spray that’s been produced by certified growers, if you like—producers; manufacturers—and is able to be prescribed by a doctor for any purpose. Let the doctors do their job. Rely on them to say, “You’ve got this condition, sir or madam. These are the options: we can use medicinal cannabis in tablet form or spray form, or we can use some other type of painkiller or medicine or penicillin”, or whatever it might be—I’m not a doctor. There’s lots of options available. Let the doctors do their job, but don’t let loose-leaf cannabis out legitimately on the grounds of compassion, because if it is for compassion, I say let it be for compassion.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 177 in the name of the Hon Dr David Clark to insert new clause 5A be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

New clause 5A agreed to.

Clause 6 Section 13 amended (Miscellaneous offences)

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Chair. This clause very clearly talks about possession of a pipe, and the purpose of that is for using any plant or plant material. So, if the discussion of loose-leaf was ever out of the discussion before, clearly it’s in here. The Minister indicated last night that smoked loose-leaf is part of a full medicinal cannabis scheme; so that’s just a given. Let’s just accept that and talk to it as it is.

And we heard what he said. You heard from our side that there may be some misunderstanding around the use of smoked loose-leaf in the terminal exception. I made the point last night that if you start people on smoked loose-leaf under the terminal exception without sunsetting it—without putting an end to it—you will not ethically be able to pull it away when a full medicinal cannabis scheme comes in. So there is some understanding of why smoked loose-leaf is in a full medicinal cannabis scheme. Let’s just accept it, the Minister agree, move on, and talk to that. I would also note that the Minister is studiously avoiding the question I put previously around smoked loose-leaf: whether, in a full medicinal cannabis scheme, smoked loose-leaf could be smoked in public—studiously avoiding that.

Coming back to the terminal exception that you’ve already heard has some agreement and understanding—certainly some understanding, I’ll put it, on our part—but studiously avoiding the issue of smoked loose-leaf in public. And I let that stand there as an ongoing question: will he allow some regulations around the smoking of loose-leaf in public? Is that such a bizarre statement to make? Is there something odd about that? If it is, why is that the law in New York? Why does the New York medicinal cannabis scheme say you will not smoke loose-leaf cannabis? Thirty million to 60 million—it’s one of those. It’s good enough for them to say, “Yes, we understand medicinal cannabis is important,”—as do we; that’s why we’re here trying to progress this along, but then to also say—“but we can’t allow loose-leaf to be smoked in public.”—for all the reasons that we have as well.

There are reasons of quality. There are reasons and concerns around contamination. Cannabis is a very good plant for drawing contaminants out of the soil. In fact, in a number of areas, it’s used for what’s called phytoremediation—that is, used to plant to clear the soil. That’s great. It comes out of the soil, into the plant—and then you smoke that? Really, you’re going to let that happen uncontrolled in public? We’ve already raised those concerns around how smoked loose-leaf in public, under the Minister’s full scheme, will normalise the smoking of loose-leaf cannabis. We would contend there’s a different forum for that discussion. That may be in the referendum; it may be in other places. But it is not, and should not, be under the guise of medicinal or medical need. That truly is legalisation. It is legalisation by stealth and legalisation by stealth under the guise of medical need.

Some might say, “Well, look, we need loose-leaf because of the dose-time response. It’s the only way we can get a quick response.” I agree: tablets and other sorts of formulations can take three or four hours, sometimes even longer. Smoked loose-leaf does have a quicker hit, but there are other mechanisms to achieve that, and, indeed, through our suggestions and our Supplementary Order Papers and legislation, we were talking about how you could be vaping a solution which will give you exactly the same dose-time response, that would give you all the quality factors you’re looking for, and that, in a well-manufactured regime, would achieve everything you’re looking for from a physiological perspective and be accessible and affordable. It was all of those things that we have created in the scheme that we are putting forward.

Now, some might say, “Well, what about Bedrocan?” Well, for those of you who don’t know, Bedrocan’s a form of standardised loose-leaf. The problem with Bedrocan is several things. First of all, it’s very expensive, and, secondly, it doesn’t get past some of our issues around normalising loose-leaf in the community. So, again, we’re putting on record, if we haven’t already before, that the National Party will not be supporting the smoking of loose-leaf cannabis in public or the smoking of loose-leaf cannabis under a full medicinal cannabis scheme. Certainly, this clause here very clearly talks to that. It talks to the utensils. It all just gets scarier as you read this further. It talks to the utensils that you’ll have to use. It talks to the plant and plant material. It’s already a given that smoked loose-leaf is in the full scheme, and now let’s just talk about the merits of that: why it should be or why it shouldn’t be. Very clearly, we’re putting a stake in the ground: we will not support the smoking of loose-leaf cannabis under the guise of a full medicinal cannabis scheme. Thank you.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to, obviously, respond to the debate points that have just been raised but also to refer to clause 6—which we’re, obviously, debating—which I would note is an extension or, rather, a clarification of the criminal defence which is offered to those who are in palliative care or in palliation. So I just want to actually bring this back to what the crux or the purpose of this piece of legislation is, which is around addressing the issues of access and affordability of medicinal cannabis, and the purpose for that is to try and explain why it is important that we have this criminal defence.

This criminal defence, as has been elucidated by the Minister of Health a number of times, is a stopgap. It exists for the purpose of compassion for those who are presently in palliative care—obviously, formerly, in terminal illness. I would note, of course, as well that the Green Party advocated for this to be extended for any who may need it for medical necessity, but, unfortunately, we didn’t manage to get that across the line.

I also wanted to clarify for the sake of, I believe it was Alastair Scott, who raised the figures, and who wasn’t sure where I got my figures from with regard to the 43 percent of 40,000 New Zealanders who are consuming cannabis on an annual basis, using it for medical purposes. That was from a Ministry of Health cannabis use survey from 2012-13, which, notably, obviously, was, of course, when the National Party were in power.

So I think that that’s important to note, because this is already happening. We need to provide greater safeguards for New Zealanders who may be going down this track. But this is not a prescription-based scheme, when you’re looking at a criminal defence. That’s why it’s important to realise that this is simply a compassionate stopgap to ensure that those who are literally on their deathbed are not being successfully prosecuted and sent to jail.

So I just wanted to clarify those points and simply state that this is not the decriminalisation that has been heralded by some. This section solely concerns those who have been given certification by a medical practitioner that they are in palliative care, and that acts as a criminal defence—i.e., that they would still be put through a prosecution process—albeit, notably, the police, in their submission to our Health Committee said that they are already using their discretion in choosing who they decide to prosecute. But I just really want to quell the moral panic here, because what this clause focuses on is solely those who have been given certification from a medical practitioner that they are in palliative care, and that certification acts as a criminal defence in a case where they are being prosecuted for the use or possession of cannabis or cannabis-related utensils.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to touch on this point on utensils, which clearly brings into question the smoking of loose-leaf cannabis. I want to touch on a point that the Minister used in justifying why the smoking of loose-leaf cannabis should be OK as one approaches near the end of life. But before I touch on that in substance, I just want to respond to a point that Chlöe Swarbrick, the member who’s just resumed her seat, made.

This claim that an offering of a defence means that a criminal trial process still continues is complete hogwash. It’s a claim that was made yesterday, as well. Here’s the reality of the situation and the criminal process: if the police believe that the person in front of them has and meets the test for a legal defence to the crime, they simply won’t press the charges. To stand in this House and say “This doesn’t make any great change. It’s still going to go through the courts, but when they are on trial, then they’ll be OK—they’ll get off.” is a nonsense, and we shouldn’t have the public going to sleep at night—or, indeed, during the day as they listen to this—thinking that that might possibly be the case.

The real substance I wanted to talk about was a contribution the Minister made when we were talking about this permitting the smoking of loose-leaf cannabis, and clause 6 certainly does that, through the use of utensils. The Minister made a comment—and he may wish to stand and say that he thinks differently under this clause, but I suspect it would be the same—that “It should be OK because it is nearing the end of life, and what’s the harm if people are going to smoke a joint? They are terminal.”—so, the harm that it would cause is not going to have a material effect on their life at that point. Well, my issue with that—and I feel that the Minister didn’t accurately respond to the question that was raised under that clause—is it doesn’t explain why we are permitting in this bill to introduce a gross inconsistency in the area of how people are able to take otherwise illegal substances.

He didn’t explain why either this bill, or, particularly, this substance, is somehow so greater, better, or otherwise that it should be—in the end of your life, it’s OK to have a law that says you can smoke loose-leaf cannabis because we have other otherwise illegal substances that are used routinely to ease pain or suffering in end-of-life conditions. The most obvious ones are opiate-based products, which are very regularly used in our health profession—very regularly used for people in great pain, and particularly people who are perhaps nearing the end of life, as well. To my knowledge, and, certainly, in recent times, there has been no question that we would pass a law that would say “Well, you’re nearing the end of your life and you’re in a terminal condition, so you can smoke opiate.” Certainly, you can be prescribed opiate-based products—absolutely. It’s a fundamentally—well, maybe “common” might not be quite the right word but it is definitely a part of medical treatment in New Zealand, including for people suffering great pain and nearing the end of their lives. But we’ve never entertained the idea that we would suddenly say, “Well, because you’re almost near the end of your life, you can smoke opium.”, so why would we have a law that says you can smoke marijuana?

In fact, our contention is that the use of medicinal marijuana or medicinal cannabis products should be regulated, should be a medical grade of product and should be properly treated, and certainly not a loose-leaf product. If the governing parties would just pause and actually consider, they still have time to support elements, at least, of the Supplementary Order Papers that Dr Shane Reti has put forward that would put in place the very regime they want to create, and which wouldn’t require even a transition period to permit the smoking of loose-leaf cannabis. That would be good for New Zealand, and it would certainly make this bill a better bill.

Minister Clark, how about you stand and tell us why—what is so different about marijuana, or cannabis, that, nearing the end of the life it’s OK to smoke that, and yet we wouldn’t entertain an idea that says, in the same situation, “We’ll just allow you to smoke some opiate.”? In the context of what the Government is saying this bill is about, it’s the same thing. Palliation—it’s about easing suffering, or easing pain, and helping people to get through those final parts or times of their life. So, arguably—and, I think, in a very logical sense—in that sense, one could argue they are the same. But we wouldn’t entertain saying let’s have the smoking of opium, so why on earth should we entertain this idea of permitting the smoking of loose-leaf cannabis?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Madam Chair, a number of the arguments and issues canvassed in this clause are ones that were covered last night in the debate, but I appreciate not all members may have been following that closely, so, with your indulgence, I’ll just repeat some of the material I introduced to the debate last night, just to cover off those concerns.

Mr Hudson just immediately before was raising the issue of why this illicit product should be legalised and not others. I think the answer was contained in the material he presented himself, in terms of the lack of affordable prescribed products; whereby, with opiates, there are prescribed products available. There are not affordable prescribed products in the cannabis space, and, primarily, this is a compassionate response in the interim—a stopgap, as the member Chlöe Swarbrick put it. The criminal defence is there as a stopgap to stop the prosecution of those who are literally on their deathbed.

The Green Party did advocate, as Ms Swarbrick mentioned, for a wider adoption. I appreciate it’s not directly relevant to this clause, but just noting that New Zealand First put forward a very sensible extension to palliation—which does feature in my Supplementary Order Paper 177—here at this point. Rather than simply the terminally ill, it does extend it a little further but it’s in line with the international use of products in respect of palliation. I want to thank New Zealand First for that initiative.

Going back to Dr Shane Reti, he raised again the issue of smoked loose-leaf being part of this scheme. He repeated his argument from last night on the earlier clause 5, so I will just repeat my answer from last night to the issue when he raised it on clause 5. The extending of the scheme—for example, to those who might have a palliative benefit from smoked loose-leaf—will be dealt with in the review that comes forward eventually if that’s an issue, but the fundamental point is that the scheme itself is concerned about the quality of the product, not the form. Loose-leaf, as we know, can be taken in a vaporiser under this scheme on script if it is considered to be of benefit to the patient. So that’s to cover off Mr Reti’s point.

I will stress that this clause is about the defence provision; it’s not about the types of products that may be available on the market. Though members, I can see, have enjoyed discussing those things, this is about the defence provision.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 177 in the name of the Hon David Clark to clause 6 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 6 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Clause 6 as amended agreed to.

Clause 7 Section 14 amended (Licences)

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Chair. Clause 7 starts to address licensing. This is a part that we’ve done an awful lot of work on and were, and continue to be, happy to share with Government some of those things that we found and discussions that we’ve had.

Over the course of the next few calls I want to talk about licensing, I want to talk about licence holders, I want to talk about employees and the manufacturing process. This lends itself against the background, of course, of a void of any discussion of this. That is our issue. We’ve asked for even a sort of skeleton framework around what the full medicinal cannabis scheme might look like, and we’ve seen a few more words in the Minister’s new Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the past 48 hours actually using the word manufacturing and cultivation, so that’s sort of encouraging. But that’s just a word; it doesn’t give any detail or any description thereof, and we’re prepared to do that.

So in our SOP 178, we actually address these matters. First of all, we make it very clear, and the Minister—if he adopts parts of our SOP or if it should turn out to be in his own hands—needs to make it very clear that, for a medicinal cannabis scheme, it’s being viewed as for commercial production and not for personal use or personal production, unless he views otherwise. Unless the medicinal cannabis scheme is going to allow personal production, then just come out and say it. Put it on the table so the House can debate it, look at it, scrutinise it. Oh wait, unnamed officials are going to decide that. It will never come back to the House. Great!

We want to put out what has been up to scrutiny for a number of months now and that talks to, initially, commercial production and not personal production. Again, let’s be clear, we support commercial production and I’ll talk further to that in licensing; we do not support production for personal purposes. We specifically say that in SOP 178. We actually carry it through in several clauses, but certainly in clause 4(1)(f) and (g) of new schedule 6, when we’re talking about licensing, we say the licence is for commercial, not personal, production.

What’s also interesting—because I think what a licensing regime should say is whether there’s a need. What if there’s an oversupply of manufacture? I want the director-general or someone in control to say, “You know, we’ve actually got enough medicinal cannabis in either the cultivation form, in the processing form, or in the manufacturing stage. We’re actually doing OK, so, no, I’m not going to issue you a licence until some period of time.” We think that’s very reasonable and very sensible. Can you imagine having warehouses full of loose-leaf cannabis and then it continuing to be cultivated? The risk to that could be substantial. Risks of diversion, primarily, are what we’re talking about here.

In clause 4(1)(f) of new schedule 6 we specifically say, “the licence [must be] … for commercial, not personal, production;”, and we certainly stand by that. Then we give the director-general the ability to say, “To get a licence, there needs to be ‘a need for commercial supply and demand for cannabis for medical purposes’.” That seems to make a lot of sense. In all the discussions we’ve had with industry—and I want to thank industry for so willingly coming to the table, discussing their issues and their concerns with the SOP: the detail we were able to put in front of them that the Minister hasn’t been able to. What we have done—we’ve been informed by industry. It’s better with their input. It’s a more refined and it’s a more sophisticated SOP because of industry input. This is what we expected of the Minister and his team to at least bring to select committee. But, oh wait, it was a 100-day promise and we only had 100 days to do it. Again, to reiterate, the licence in our hands is for commercial, not personal, purposes and there needs to be a need for medicinal cannabis. And we’re giving the director-general the authority to say, “No, you’re not having a licence for that.”

We then want to talk about the licence holders. This is very, very important because we think a licence holder needs to be a fit and proper person. It’s quite complex to figure out what a fit and proper person might be. We’re thinking there’s some description around the licence holder—and I’ll come to that, that there’s a higher standard for the licence holder, and there’s another standard, maybe, for employees. Again, with discussions with industry, our initial thinking has been improved and has been refined. I want to discuss how that’s changed and what the advice from industry is.

Let’s talk, first of all, around what we’re thinking a fit and proper licence holder might look like. Well, what we’re saying is, we don’t think it’s wise if you’ve had a drug-related offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act. If you’re going to be a cannabis producer and you’ve had a serious drug offence, you probably are not suitable to be a licence holder. No one in industry disagreed with that. They said, “Yes, we absolutely agree.” [Bell rung]

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I will call Dr Shane Reti again but, apologies, I omitted to say when I called for this debate that it also includes debate on new clauses 8AA and 9A, new schedule 6, set out on Dr Shane Reti’s SOP 178.

Dr SHANE RETI: Thank you, Madam Chair. I was discussing the fit and proper person criteria that, together with industry, we’ve determined is a pretty good start: no offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act, no serious drug offences under the Crimes Act, no crimes involving dishonesty, and no offences outside of New Zealand. We also think it’s reasonable for a licence holder not to have been addicted or habituated to the use of a controlled drug or prescription drug—a medical practitioner can certify that—has not at any time been declared bankrupt, and has not had a licence revoked.

Now, if we look at what the Australians do in this space, they are much more firm around what a fit and proper person should be to hold a licence. They are actually much more didactic around some quite deep relationships that a licence holder may not have. We’ve watered down some of those and brought in international best practice to give us a clearer idea as what a good definition of what a licence holder as a fit and proper person might have. We also expect them to have the expertise and resources, of course, and there are some specific locations, which I’ll talk to later, that are appropriate. So “fit and proper person” for a licence holder: quite a high bar, but every single industry person we met with said, “Yep, we agree. We can do that, no problem. The industry needs to be clean.”

I want to, then, turn to the eligibility of, or the requirements for, an employee. The case was made to us that, clearly, the requirements for an employee would not be the same bar as for a licence holder. A number of industry players in my initial iteration said, “Shane, that’s too tough. We would really struggle with that.”—not everyone, but a number said that’s too much. So, with their feedback and informed by them, we were able to reach a compromise position on an employee of the licence holder for what they might look like as a fit and proper person.

What we came to was this: also, if they’ve had a serious drug-related offence—probably not suitable. Why put them at risk? A crime involving dishonesty, an offence punishable for two or more years—of course, that’s “clean slate”; a clean history, a clean criminal record, and a clean slate of seven years unless you’ve been in prison for two years or more. An offence outside New Zealand—if an employee is currently habituated to the use of a controlled drug or prescription medicine, it’s probably going to be a challenge to be an employee in a cannabis processing facility. And what we’ve also said here is “not a member of a gang”, and we’ve defined what that might be.

These would seem to be very reasonable—very reasonable—fit and proper person qualifications that a licence holder would need to meet. Again, we’ve tested this with industry and modified it. We peeled it back from, maybe, what was a harder position to what was still acceptable with the National Party caucus, is still a firm standard, and that looks backwards and says “If you have anything in your history that’s really serious—probably not suitable.” It also talks to the contemporary time frame that says, “Currently, here and now, if you’re habituated or if you have a gang affiliation, you’re probably not suitable as an employee.” And we think this is a very reasonable framework for fit and proper persons for licence holders and their employees, and we’d encourage the Minister to have a look at this to see if there’s something useful in this and, if so, to absorb it or, certainly, to absorb parts of the SOP.

I want to speak to locations, as well, but that’s another call, I think—another piece of work. What I want to talk to around that, under this clause of licensing, is how we got to the qualifications we have for a suitable place to cultivate, to process, and to manufacture—what we mean by that. And, again, that’s been well informed by industry, who have helped us and guided us from our initial position. Again, this SOP is more sophisticated with their input. So I think I’ll leave that for another call.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m not going to attempt to replicate what Dr Reti has just laid out—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): That would be useful.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —except to say that the clause 7 that I described in earlier calls around the famous 59 words has actually been replaced in the Government Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), and this is the area of the bill that gives us such concern. The Minister, in his SOP, has elaborated somewhat on what the regulation might look like and given some kind of nod to quality standards, but it’s what it doesn’t say that gives us the greatest cause for concern.

It’s absolutely vital, just to reiterate, that the purpose of Dr Reti’s SOP is not to do officials’ work; it is not to write the regulation. There is still a great deal of work that’s required over the next few months in order to have that regulatory framework, that licensing regime, established. It is by no means—comprehensive though it is and given a tremendous amount of kudos by people in the medicinal cannabis industry, or those who will seek to go into it, and other commentators as to the quality of the proposed member’s bill that has formed the basis of SOP 178 and the new schedules—the end of the story. There’s still a great deal more work to do, but I do think it would be appropriate for this House to give the New Zealand public confidence that when those officials do go away and write those regulations, these are more than belts and braces requirements. These are quite important things to them, like will a factory producing cannabis, which could end up in a medicine or could end up in a pipe, be away from a school? That’s a reasonable question to ask.

It’s entirely possible—likely, in fact—that Medsafe or the ministry or some medicinal cannabis advisory group will actually have that, but we have a responsibility to stand in front of the New Zealand public and say “We thought about that on your behalf and we made sure it was in there.”—about who, actually, is entitled to gain a licence. Should they, by their experience in the cannabis industry, be ruled in or out? And what is the nature of that experience? Will they be fit and proper people if they have had run-ins with the law for the manufacture, distribution, and supply of illegal substances? Well, we say “No.” And the Minister and the Government and their officials may also agree with us, but let’s have that laid out so that we can give the public confidence that we know what we’re doing.

Now, Medsafe and Dr Stewart Jessamine and his team came into the Health Committee to talk about and to answer questions from National Party members about what this regime would look like. I have had some dealings with Dr Jessamine over a long period of time. I think he’s a fine fellow and I think he’s a loss to the Ministry of Health, given that he’s recently departed that role. But he wasn’t able to say—he wasn’t able to say—whether a factory would go near a school. Would a person with serious drug convictions be able to gain a licence? Should it be manufactured inside or outside? What will be the sorts of protections that the regulation regime would have? And the answer was, in his very articulate and plausible way: “Trust us; we’ve done this before.”

Well, actually, for two very good reasons, New Zealand hasn’t done this before. We are, indeed, breaking new ground. Our drug trials and drug development regime is not as mature as other countries’ around the world. We have a couple of pharmaceutical companies that manufacture generic products that may include opioids and may include the use of substances that in other forms could be considered illegal. We already have a regime around that. In fact, one of the things that Dr Jessamine said was that technically—technically—this bill isn’t even necessary for the development of future medicinal cannabis pharmaceutical products. But, indeed, we have it. So we are breaking new ground. We don’t have the experience in actually developing the regimes of this nature.

So I think it behoves the Government to provide some kind of assurance, even in the Hansard, by the Minister to say “OK. We’re not going to prescribe”—there’s a double entendre—“what the regulation is going to have.” But, at least, the Minister would be able to give some kind of assurance about those sorts of things which we know are concerning some New Zealanders. And, indeed, there’s been a wide range of views, from very conservative to very liberal, on the subject, given not only to colleagues but by colleagues. It’s a very broad range of views, and it is a difficult one, but I think we’d all agree that a regime should have minimum exposure of this product to children, who could be confused about the legitimacy of something in one form. In fact, I think naming matters. The use of the term “cannabis” should probably not be used in these products. We don’t call morphine “heroin”. We give codeine a fancy name, but in its illicit form it’s probably called something else on the street. Language matters, and I think those are the sorts of examples that we should be able to give the New Zealand public a confidence and a reassurance that the regime, whatever the regulation comes up with, does at least have those sorts of conditions attached to it.

The last one, of course, which isn’t spoken about—in fact could be if it’s introduced by way of an amendment to this bill—is advertising. It’s another thing that we’ve had conversation about: the advertising of over-the-counter products and prescription medicines. I know the Minister is taking advice from officials about that very point. Are we going to allow these sorts of products to be advertised? You know, “Ask your doctor if medicinal cannabis is right for you.” I can just imagine what that’s going to look like on the TV.

So I think these are really important preconditions to the regulation-making framework that should be being built in. These are really sensible amendments that Dr Reti has come up with, and I implore the Minister of Health to at least give some kind of confidence to the New Zealand public, even if he can’t support the SOP.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve been listening to this debate with interest, and I guess it’s not a topic that I’m all that familiar with, but, none the less, I heard Stuart Smith earlier on say he had a bit of sympathy for this case and for this type of legislation and for the products involved in it, and I certainly do too, because if they work, they work.

I want to raise an issue under clause 7, under the licensing clause of this bill, which I think is a little interesting and which I don’t think would be considered. I really want to ask the Minister of Health whether it has been and whether it might be. I also want to add the point that there’s always, in the course of legislation in this House, tension between the regulation process and the content of the legislation itself, and I think that, in this case, it does look to me as though it’s in the grey area we’re dealing with. But what I wanted to talk about was how you measure a minimum-quality standard in a product that, in fact, is a natural product. If, in fact, you’re going to allow loose-leaf cannabis to become part of this bill, if the regulations do allow that, then how do you manage the content of that product?

I think it’s very interesting, because—I mean, I don’t know a lot about growing cannabis; although, I do note that one of our premier plant breeders, Dr Warren Parker, has been appointed to the Landcorp board, and maybe Landcorp’s going to move into cannabis pretty quickly. They’ve done all those sorts of things in recent times and have adapted their ways of operating. But what I wanted to ask the Minister was how, in fact, they’re ever going to measure the cannabinoid content of loose-leaf cannabis.

If you think about it from a plant-breeding perspective, it would be very easy. And I don’t know what research is being done into growing cannabis, and I don’t know how much science has been applied to the growing of it in New Zealand, but when you think about the yield of a wheat plant or a maize plant or anything like that, we’ve probably doubled the yields of those in recent times. You can also double the sugar levels of them. You can change dramatically the content of a plant. What really intrigues me about loose-leaf cannabis is how you manage or ever set a standard in a product that’s grown naturally, or even a product that’s grown under licensed conditions. Plants are really interesting things because you can very easily change the standard of them or change the quality of them, and so if we are in fact going to end up with loose-leaf cannabis becoming part of this legislation, then it is going to be very difficult, in my view, to set a regulation that actually measures the content of that plant. So that’s one of the points I want to raise.

I think the licensing of the stuff is an interesting issue, I think the licensing of people to deal with this stuff is an interesting issue, and I also think that the location of those plants or factories or whatever is used to produce them—

Stuart Smith: Could be in the grounds of a prison?

IAN McKELVIE: Ha, ha! Well, it’d be secure, Stuart! It’d be secure! But I do think that the location and all that sort of thing is an interesting issue. Of course, if you go back in history, the original basis of cannabis, really, was the hemp plant. And the hemp plant, of course, if it were used legitimately, would be one of the most useful plants we could ever acquire. So I think that there’s an interesting debate about that as well, but what does interest me is how you would ever measure the minimum content or the standard that you might supply loose-leaf cannabis at and how you would then control the way that was distributed and grown.

I think that, when you start to legislate for the provision of a product that we’ve had historically available to us, whether legally or not, and when that becomes a medicine, it does add a whole new set of questions, I think, to the way we supply medicine and the way, in fact, our pharmaceutical products are supplied in New Zealand. I know that’s been part of a significant discussion earlier in this debate, but my real question is: how do you manage the content of these plants and how might we then get the legislation or regulation around that managed in a form that gives us some control of its future? So that’s my contribution to the debate, and I look forward to the rest of the debate in the committee.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Before I call Matt Doocey, I’d just like to say to the member that that was a very useful clause 6 debate. We are actually, in fact, on clause 7.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you for the instruction, Madam Chair. I look forward to debating clause 7. I think, for me, clause 7, when we look at licensing, actually defines what an absolute shambles this bill is. It is absolutely silent on licensing and actually raises more questions than answers.

I’ve got to feel for the Minister of Health. I mean, he’s a new Minister and he’s up against the likes of Dr Shane Reti and the Hon Michael Woodhouse, two members with exemplary careers in health before coming into politics. It sort of reminds me of an up-and-coming number 8 who probably would have thought they’d make the All Blacks, and then they realise they’re in the era of Richie McCaw; I really feel for the Minister, who’s going to be overshadowed by these two. This bill demonstrates it. How embarrassing to actually be silent on some key areas like licensing.

As my colleague Dr Shane Reti outlined, why would the public not want to know the licensing regime that will define the character that we want of people holding these licences? I mean, in the Health Committee we even discovered that we weren’t going to even use the word “commercial” for cultivation. How we have a party like New Zealand First advocating for a bill that won’t even define cultivation as commercial and that will allow, for the first time, loose-leaf cannabis being smoked in this country is beyond belief.

Now, working in the select committee, what I wrote down is, it’s always going to be the tension between greater access to high-quality medicinal cannabis products to ease suffering and having the right regulatory and legislative controls in place. And where would that play out—that’s, in fact, in clause 7—around licensing? Why are we so silent on this? The Hon Michael Woodhouse posed the question: why are we not giving the public confidence that we know what we are doing? Well, in fact, I think that was a rhetorical question. In fact we don’t know what we’re doing, and that’s because the Minister won’t allow this schedule or the licensing to be known to this House and to be debated by the House.

Let’s take one example: are we going to allow production, cultivation, and manufacture close to a school? We’ve all probably got rose-tinted glasses on that under this licence there’ll be fields of benign cannabis plants growing in the New Zealand rural areas. In fact, a lot of this production, I would guess, is probably a lot of hot-boxing in warehouses and factories that are probably in light industrial spaces.

Are we going to have to come back in time to come to change the Education Act to put exclusion zones around schools because parents and teachers and pupils are up in arms because these are nearby? Why are we not allowed to put words like “commercial” next to “cultivation”? Why are we not allowed to discuss the licensing regime? I think all the questions that Dr Shane Reti has posed are answered in his Supplementary Order Papers, so it would be interesting to hear from the Minister why he doesn’t think they are good ideas.

What’s the problem with cross-party working? We do it in climate change. We do it in child poverty. Unfortunately for this Minister, we’re not going to do it in mental health. We’re not going to do it around medicinal cannabis. What’s the point of turning up to a select committee and hearing thousands of submissions, if we’re not going to work across the table?

I think the people on this side of the House who have a health background know that what we do in health is we get the stakeholders round the table and we work through it. And what we have left is more questions than answers for clause 7. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to address a number of the points made in the debate so far on the issue of the regulatory regime.

Firstly, Matt Doocey raised the question about details and wanting to know what the regulation would look like, and he put the case that Dr Shane Reti’s attempts at this ought to be sufficient for us to pass this through and codify it in law. There was a debate about this in various other stages and clauses of the debate, so I am going to repeat myself a little because this was covered, particularly in clause 5A around—

Matt Doocey: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. We come to this Chamber wanting the ability to debate clauses—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Yes, and your point is?

Matt Doocey: I’ve been in this debate today and last night, and I do get frustrated that every time I make a call and a submission, like my colleagues do, the repeated narrative is that the Minister’s deciding—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): That is not a point of order. [Interruption] That is not a point of order. [Interruption] Sit down, Mr Doocey. That is not a point of order.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The point that I will cover again is the conversation around whether this regulation put forward by Dr Reti is the best way to progress things—whether we should codify that in law. I would characterise Dr Reti’s work as—I’ll say Dr Reti has approached this task with enthusiasm. He has consulted some experts himself and industry, and I congratulate him on that work. But I would also say that the advice that I’ve had is that there are flaws in Dr Reti’s work and that wider consultation is incredibly important in order to have the best possible regulations that we could have. The time frame that Dr Reti has put forward for having this in practice is too short to even consult on the Supplementary Order Paper that he is putting forward, and I think it would be the height of arrogance to think that the politicians in this Parliament are better across the issues around medicinal cannabis than the whole of industry and the whole of those who have a stake in this, the health professionals and so on, who would contribute to a full regulatory process. That is the substance of this debate, and I accept that.

I do note also that the Hon Michael Woodhouse raised the issue of whether a factory would be near a school. He was concerned that there wasn’t detail about this—around advertising and so on. These are precisely the things that should be consulted on widely and thoroughly with those who are experts—not politicians in this House laying it down, putting it in law, and having to come and revisit it six months later when it’s shown to be inadequate. So I don’t accept the argument that it’s better to have the stamp of politicians on a regime that is about a range of products that are moving and changing. The safety issues around them are developing over time. New expertise and studies are coming out on a weekly basis. I think this needs to be a regime that is fit for purpose and that is designed by, and consulted on with, experts and the industry. So I reject their idea that we should codify it in terms of a bill prepared by a happy, enthusiastic but amateur person in this space.

I don’t mean to demean Dr Reti, because I think he has absolutely genuinely approached this task, but I think it is wise for us as politicians to consult with the whole industry, with all of those experts in this field, with the various professions engaged. I think we should have nurse practitioners involved. I have a range of views that will be a little different to Dr Reti’s, and I think we are wise to consult with experts rather than have politicians making this case.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for his recent contribution. It’s not clear to me, where he talks about needing experts and wide consultation and taking time, that any of that happened with the terminal exception. He seems to be quite capable of writing regulations and even describing diseases in the terminal exception but has nothing, no detail at all, around a wider medicinal cannabis scheme. So I think one is saying one thing with one side of the face and maybe something different with another.

I think there are two key parts of licensing that I’d like to speak to in these next two calls that I have. The first is around location, which has been touched on by my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse, and the last call, somewhere in this debate, I’d like to take would be around production standards—very, very important items within the overall scheme of a medicinal cannabis scheme that are, again, completely blank for Government.

From a location perspective—to provide some guidance that we hope is useful to this debate, we took some guidance, actually, from the Psychoactive Substances Act, that has descriptions like no production within five kilometres of a residential zone and within a kilometre of a special area such as a wāhi tapu; there are a lot of really good things that were already existing in legislation. So we looked to use what was already there and then see how it could be modified by best practice. And I’m sure those international experts that we’ve spoken with and consulted with will take no umbrage at what the Minister said. I don’t believe he’s demeaning them at all, just maybe that he doesn’t recognise what they’ve contributed.

What we then came to with discussions with pretty much most of the industry players was that that initial description of no production—and I’ll come to that in detail in the next call: “production” meaning cultivation, processing, and manufacturing; “manufacturing” being the labelling and the boxing, if you like, that whole process—five kilometres from a residential zone was quite tough, quite a challenge. Many of the industry players said “Wow, find us a production area outside of five kilometres from a residential area.” So we took that on board, looked overseas, took advice, and modified what you see here in Supplementary Order Paper 178.

Fundamentally, what that says is that in an industrial zone we allow production on the basis that it is not visible to the public—that is, that it’s opaque glasshouses. Secondly—this is indoor production as well, clearly—what we also say is no production within one kilometre of a residential zone unless it is indoor production; again, not visible to the public—opaque glasshouses. Now, most of industry said “Gosh, we’re not only going to have opaque glasshouses, we’re going to have great big fences around it.”—so your concerns of normalising the process or of encouraging crime by having production in a neighbourhood and all those things, you can set aside. “Not only are we going to have what you’re suggesting but we’re going to do better than that.” So that was very reassuring. What that then left was the outdoor growers, and they were happy to remain at five kilometres from a residential zone and not around a sensitive area, again, like a wāhi tapu.

And so this would seem eminently sensible. I think these are the sorts of things—well, I don’t think; I know—that industry are saying: “Give us a guideline, give us some sense, rather than a blank page, over the next two to three years, whatever it’s going to be, because we are needing to organise investors. We’re wanting to get on to this right away. You want to have medicinal cannabis products that are affordable and accessible as quickly as possible into the New Zealand market; we’re ready to go. We’ve got investors, we’ve got the knowledge of how to do this, but we need to know what you might allow.”

So we put out there a structure and a framework that gave them some sense of, yes, you can actually be maybe looking at factories in this area. You can make a start. They were very worried: “Well, we don’t know what the Minister’s going to do. What if this part of your bill’s not taken up.” That is a risk. I accept that’s a risk and I believe in its blank state that’s a risk that will delay the roll-out and deployment of a medicinal cannabis scheme. But I would hope the Government doesn’t stray too far, if they’re not going to absorb in entirety the suggestions we put here, from what we’ve suggested are good best-practice standards, which industry are already saying “We can work with that.”, and give them some guidance so that they can keep moving, so that when we’re ready to deploy, which now will be in a year as per the legislation, we get that seed to sale as quickly as possible.

The overseas experience is six to twelve months. Some industries say they can do it in six months. It will be two and three years if there’s no guidance given to the industry around where they’ll be able to base their production centres. You don’t get that expertise quickly. You can’t build facilities that quickly. I’d like to come back for another call to talk about production further on.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. I want to respond to a few points raised by Dr Shane Reti and also actually acknowledge him—I’m not sure if I’ve done that so far in this debate, but I have throughout a number of other debates—for the work that he has undertaken in coming to the table and informing and educating his caucus as well and in moving the conversation across Aotearoa New Zealand, actually, and joining me and other members of Parliament in doing so.

I think that his work is invaluable, but I also want to acknowledge the point that he made around best practice and state that both myself and Shane—I believe it was earlier this week, or it might have been last week—received a booklet from Medicinal Cannabis Awareness New Zealand on the point of best practice in different jurisdictions across the world. There are a number of different approaches to how we could go about rolling out a medicinal cannabis regime. I do believe that what Dr Shane Reti is proposing in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 178 is what he believes is best practice, but it isn’t necessarily what has been found to be best practice in jurisdictions across the rest of the world.

So, to that point, I also wanted to touch on what he’s raised with regard to consulting with industry. It was earlier this morning, actually, that I touched base with Manu Caddie, who is the lead of Hikurangi Enterprises, which was actually the first New Zealand company—

Kiritapu Allan: From the mighty East Coast.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —from the mighty East Coast, I might add, for the sake of my colleague Kiritapu Allan. Manu Caddie is the head of Hikurangi Enterprises, based in Ruatoria, in the mighty East Coast, and they were the first New Zealand company to receive a licence for medicinal cannabis in this country. It’s actually largely an iwi-led organisation as well, but it serves to reinvest in its community and has worked with the local Eastern Institute of Technology polytech to start creating a hemp course to train people and give them a second shot, particularly those, actually, who have ended up being convicted under the Misuse of Drugs Act. I was down a few months ago—or, rather, up, given that we’re currently in Wellington—in the East Coast, talking to a number of the people who are engaged in this education about the second chance that this is offering them to turn their lives around, which is why I think it’s important to focus on the proposals within Shane Reti’s SOP, particularly those with regard to eligibility for licences.

I want to focus particularly on the point made in section 5(1)(b) in new schedule 6 around how people will not be granted licences if they have been convicted of “an offence against this Act or of any other drug-related offence;”. I just really want to pose the question: surely it is the case that these people who have been convicted of those drug offences have served their time? I mean, what we’ve seen in jurisdictions across the world, particularly in those that have taken a more conservative approach to developing medicinal cannabis frameworks, is that the people who have been disproportionately targeted and penalised under the war on drugs and under the prohibition of cannabis are an entirely different demographic from those who are profiting from the developing market in medicinal cannabis. So I really just want to raise the question of equity and, actually, the question of Te Tiriti o Waitangi within this clause.

So, too, I want to refer to the points around the director-general’s ability to consider a person’s—and I quote—“connections and associations that the person has with other persons who may have the ability to influence the conduct of the person:”, and ask how broad that discretion goes. It seems somewhat disconcerting to me that that opens the door to prejudice or discrimination. That, I think, is a very worthwhile concern to be raising, and I would love to hear Dr Shane Reti’s response to that, understanding that he would have his own perspective on why he’s brought that to the table. Also, the point around how a person’s reputation may be considered is something which is rather disconcerting, because reputation is, obviously, something which is somewhat subjective and, I would argue, goes further along the way of opening that door to discrimination.

I also just briefly want to touch on the points raised, particularly by Matt Doocey, with regard to location, where he’s called it a “hothouse”, where cannabis would be produced. I think that he may be referring to something else when he’s speaking about hothouses, but what we’re talking about here is the location where cannabis is produced, not consumed, and those will be nailed down in the licensing scheme as delegated to the Ministry of Health.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I just want to pick up on the points raised by the member Chlöe Swarbrick in her contribution about the width of the director-general’s ability to have discretion, and concerns about Treaty issues and natural justice.

It is true that there are a number of restrictions put forward in Dr Reti’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 178 around who might be involved in the cultivation of medicinal cannabis. I just want to put on record that concerns have been raised by the industry, including those who are already producing, for research purposes, products, who employ those who previously have minor criminal convictions and see it as a legitimate way to get them back into work and into meaningful, paid, proper employment.

I think this highlights for me the very point that I’ve made earlier in the same debate around the clause, that we think that regulation needs to have a wider public process of scrutiny. By codifying it in the law now, we risk making mistakes that could be avoided by having a wider consultation process. That’s why I recognise the work that’s gone into Dr Reti’s SOP but also the risks that come with rigidly codifying this through the Parliament, requiring additional work, time, and delayed effort, eventually, of the Parliament. If concerns arise, the Parliament is less nimble and able to respond to the evidence of how a law is implemented and the effect of how a law is implemented. It’s an argument for making sure things are codified in regulation and with constant access to experts and expert oversight.

So I just think the member Chlöe Swarbrick has raised some really important points around the width, also, of the director-general’s discretion about who might be fit and proper persons, including judgments around reputation. This is the kind of error that could be made in codifying this in the law without a wide consultation as to the broader effects of this in New Zealand’s society.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to take a call on the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill. I just want to make a few comments in relation to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 178 in the name of my colleague Dr Shane Reti. I just want to acknowledge the work that he’s done and, actually, the detail that this Supplementary Order Paper goes into on this important topic. I just want to also focus on these eligibility and suitability criteria for an individual to hold a licence, and just make a few points in relation to why these are so important and why these should be put in place in the primary legislation.

I think, firstly, we as Parliament are the ones who create the law. We are the ones who have the responsibility to ensure that we get this legislation right. We as Parliament are the ones who should be dictating to any regulated medicinal cannabis market as to who should and who shouldn’t be eligible to hold a licence to produce, to sell, and to be able to distribute medicinal cannabis products. I think it’s important that we take stock of the fact that we are dealing with substances here which are currently in the Misuse of Drugs Act. These are drugs which need to be regulated in a way which we as Parliament should be making sure is done in a fit and proper way. So putting these in the primary legislation is actually a critical way in terms of making sure that Parliament’s intent is actually held.

I’d like to point out that the bill which is actually on the Table, without the Supplementary Order Papers, essentially lacks all the detail in regard to who should be eligible and who should be suitable, and leaves that not only to be delayed but completely unknown to us as parliamentarians and as members of Parliament who are responsible for setting in place the legislation.

So the eligibility criteria, I think, in clause 5 of new schedule 6, are very sound. The individual must be 18 years or older—that’s in line with a range of other legislation around age—and they have not been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty, an offence punishable by imprisonment for two or more years, or an offence outside New Zealand. I think I heard the member Chlöe Swarbrick talking earlier about how this, potentially, will get in the way of some people who may have been convicted of certain drug offences in the past. But the point being made here is that we want people who have a good record who are in the business of creating these medicinal products.

We want people who have a clean record, and we want them to have been law-abiding citizens. That is something which is expected of so many other people in so many other functions under a range of other pieces of legislation. Law-abiding citizens are required by law to be in place and licensed in a range of functions under legislation. So the question we as Parliament have to ask is: why is this any different? Why should we here be going for a lower standard of people who have eligibility to deal, to create, to manufacture, and distribute medicinal cannabis products than for any other medicine or drug products in our legislation? I’d like the Minister to address that question as to why we would potentially be opening ourselves up to a lower standard of person who has eligibility.

I think the intent that this SOP is trying to put forward is that we are creating a medicinal cannabis regime. It’s about medicines. It’s about people who will be in the business of creating medicines, manufacturing medicines, researching medicines, selling medicines. This is not a sort of quasi - legalised cannabis or marijuana smoking pot scheme. The intent is to create medicines for New Zealanders to assist them and help them. So why should we as Parliament be accepting people who may have a chequered record, who may have committed drug-related offences, who may have been involved with dishonesty? Why should we as Parliament accept those people to be given the ability to also engage in this scheme, when New Zealanders who go to their doctors and seek a prescription for medicine should know that the whole process—[Time expired]

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I make my contribution, I would just like to acknowledge Matt Doocey’s wonderful description of Dr Reti and I, and put on record that it’s probably me that will be the shortest-ever comparison with Richie McCaw in this country’s history, flattering though that is.

I was very disappointed, actually, to hear the Minister of Health talk about Dr Reti’s very sensible amendments as “rigidly codifying”, as if this is the proposed end of the story. In fact, this is simply the start line. It’s absolutely understood that there are many, many other parts to the regulatory framework that are necessary to give effect to this licensing regime. What Dr Reti has done is put down some very, very important baseline considerations, and it’s very disappointing not only that the Government isn’t going to take them up but that they mis-describe what that Supplementary Order Paper 178 is in such a way.

Now, I’m going to change tack, because there is a very important issue around this that I’m gravely concerned about, particularly with the revelation that the Minister is not only not ruling out loose leaf but, in fact, tacitly saying that it’s going to be part of the regime. Now, for two years I was the Associate Minister of Transport, with responsibility for road and rail safety, and for three years I was the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety and passaged the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 through this House. While I was Associate Minister of Transport, there was a terrible accident near Foxton where a truck ran into the back of a line of traffic, concertinaed a car—it exploded—and two people were killed. I had to go on a TV show one Sunday night to explain why that driver, who had THC in their bloodstream, had not been convicted of drug-driving causing death.

The reason is that the impairment framework for drug-driving is very different from alcohol. Alcohol takes a blood alcohol content and it’s highly correlated with impairment. Therefore, we know that if the impairment level is at a certain point, somebody is impaired. Drug-driving is different. It requires, firstly, a per se evidence of impairment before there is a blood test, and it’s a very expensive blood test. Now, my concern is that if we create a medicinal cannabis regime that includes the ingestion of loose-leaf cannabis—and even if it doesn’t; if it’s an oil or a pill or something, it could still very much have a hallucinogenic property—we are going to have a significant challenge with people who are drug-driving on our roads.

Now, most people who are found to have been drug-driving, usually after they’ve been killed in an accident, or even if they’re arrested, have a combination of alcohol and drug in their system. Now, I know, as a former Minister of Police—because police told me this, that they take a relatively least resistant path. If somebody is believed to have had drugs and alcohol in their system but they can prove that there’s alcohol and they’re over the limit, they’ll take that prosecution. It makes sense, because they get the offence recorded in any event. So there is a great deal of under-reporting of the amount of drug-driving causing death, or injury, in this country, if the driver is not killed. If the driver is killed, a blood test will be taken and there’ll be the confirmation of THC. The problem with this is that THC, the presence of THC, has a half-life of days or weeks. This is why we needed the impairment test.

Now, the problem I’ve got with endorsing smoking loose leaf under the licensing regime that we’re covering is that we may create a massive risk on our roads that cannot be managed with the current land transport rules and the Land Transport Act. What disappoints me about this is that there apparently has been not one bit of consultation with the New Zealand Police, with the New Zealand Transport Agency, or with anybody else—with the AA, who on their website point out that there is a defence to a drug-driving conviction if one can say they followed the instructions of their GP or the prescribing doctor.

Now, that is a nuanced position because, of course, there are many medicines that will have instructions on them that may say “Don’t drive if you’re taking this medicine.” But it’s actually a defence if the prescribing medical practitioner doesn’t physically point that out and cannot prove that it has been pointed out to the patient, and the patient ignores that instruction—that hasn’t actually carried out the delivery of that instruction; just having the warning on the box of the medicine isn’t enough. In fact, the Health Committee, in its consideration of Denise Astill’s petition, has heard a lot about the variations in the sorts of conditions where one should take a medicine. In that case, it’s epileptics.

What I’m raising here—and the Minister should, I think, reassure the House that at least some consideration of this issue will be made, even if it hasn’t already been made, because I have some confidence that we’re going to need to come back to this House and change the Land Transport Act to tighten up the drug-driving regime, because there will be a lot of people who could cause harm. Even if they’re terminally ill, they could well be capable of driving under the influence of THC only—because it’s their prescription medicine, however ingested—and causing harm on our roads, and not having a significant amount of preventive education or prosecutorial process being put in place either side of this regime.

It’s just another example of where this licensing regime is half-baked, ill-thought-through, as part of the 100-day plan. We started with 59 words. We need more words, because this isn’t just about the advisory committee or the officials that are going to be sent away to do this regime. This is a much, much broader issue that could raise questions of criminal liability in other parts of legislation, and there is absolutely, as far as I can tell, not a single nod in this bill to give us confidence that it’s even been thought through. So I’m going to be very interested in the Minister’s and the officials’ comments about that.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Chair. I believe this may be the last call that I have, and I wish to cover a particular area under the licensing production standards. But, before I do, I just want to respond to some of my colleagues. I thank member Swarbrick for her kind words.

Yes, I have met with industry—certainly Manu Caddie from Hikurangi—and, indeed, as we discussed our changes to employee eligibility, the vast majority if not all of industry players that we met with were happy with the modifications we made in consultation with them. By the way, I would also contend that I’ve met with more industry players than the Minister and his team have, on the basis that a number choose to remain undisclosed for commercial reasons, and a number are somewhat concerned that the ministry has such influence at the moment around research approvals for medicinal cannabis etc. that they don’t want to fall off side. So I would contend that I’ve met with more industry players than the Minister and his team, and so I can speak somewhat on what’s been relayed to me.

It was also discussed that there was some concern about the eligibility of fit and proper persons who might be licensed. Certainly, for the licensee, the eligibility criteria also relate to significant relationships that may influence the business—absolutely no apologies for that. The Australians write this into their legislation—oh, that’s right, not regulations; they write it into their legislation so that everyone can see it and everyone can talk about it.

Secondly, around employees, I have as an eligibility criteria no current gang affiliations—no apologies for that whatsoever. This is the manufacturing of cannabis. If you have an active gang affiliation, I’m afraid you are not suitable to be manufacturing or in the manufacturing business for cannabis. We make provisions for that under the clean slate Act equivalent, which says, “Look, if you have no further criminal record and currently you’re not an active gang affiliate and have not been in prison for two years or more, you can be an employee again.” But if you are, I’m afraid that under our scheme—and we will stand beside that—you are not suitable as an employee.

Now, I want to come to the last quantity, if you like, of work on the licensing that I want to address, and that’s production standards. Fundamentally, we believe medicinal cannabis should be a medicine like any other medicine and go through a similar process, albeit fast-tracked and abridged in places. That will give us access and affordability, but, fundamentally, it’s just another medicine. It needs the same quality standards that Medsafe applies to other medicines, and we were prepared to advance the Medsafe process through section 23 of the Medicines Act—provisional consenting—that advanced that whole lot along. But, fundamentally, it’s just another medicine. What that means is it needs to be produced under pharmaceutical standards, and that pharmaceutical standard is GMP: good manufacturing practice.

All of the industry players whom I spoke with agreed: GMP—don’t shift off that. Some people initially said, “Look, why don’t you go to the GPP standard that Canada has?” It’s a hell of a lot easier—10 percent tolerance. So if the level is 10, you could be sort of zero or 20 and it’s still OK—“near pharmaceutical”. But, eventually, every industry player that I spoke with said, “Stick with GMP, Shane.” for several reasons. First of all, if we want to export, you can only be GMP certified. Secondly, in our hands, we require clinical trials to follow up the eventual retail distribution, and you may well be able to bring phase zero, one, and two trials from offshore and demonstrate that these products are safe—all well and good; we describe all of that in parts of the work we’re putting forward, but, fundamentally, to do clinical trials, you’ve also got to be GMP standard.

So we stand beside, and we describe in our bill, that production standards for cultivating, processing, and manufacturing need to be GMP standard—that is, pharmaceutical standard. However, we didn’t want to lock that terminology in. What if, in five years’ time, Medsafe decides, “Look, there’s a better standard.”—call it X, Y, Z, who cares? Will we have to come back to the House and discuss that? Maybe not. So what we’ve actually said is that it needs to be compliant with existing Medsafe policies and practice, and how we’ve woven that in is by saying it has to be a medicine, because, under the Medicines Act, if it’s a medicine, it has to be compliant with Medsafe policies and practice. So we’ve thought this through really carefully—all the details, right through from cultivation to processing to manufacture.

Just finally, to touch on the fact that we’re extra, extra cautious around commercial production, not personal production. I’ve already mentioned we state this in the bill. We also did something rather nice to make sure it is commercial production, by saying that if you’re a cultivator, you must have a contract with a processor; if you’re a processor, you must have a contract with a manufacturer—just making absolutely sure that our intentions and what we want to achieve is commercial production of accessible and affordable medicinal cannabis.

JO HAYES (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to carry on from where Dr Shane Reti spoke about suitable persons, because when we look into our prisons, we see 51 percent of our prisons are made up of Māori. When we start to dive down into those statistics, we find 40 percent of those prisoners that are in jail have had some relationship to or some criminal background in marijuana and the misuse of drugs.

So I stand quite shocked, really, at how wide and how loose this bill is. We need to have really strong standards around this bill. Why? It’s because it is too open for it to be taken and misused amongst our population. I’ve listened to the location of where the growing of medicinal cannabis will take place, the distribution, the manufacture. I believe that strong licensing does need to actually occur. In many of the industries that I have partaken in, there is a lot of licensing regime around the way that an organisation operates, and this should not be any exception.

When I look at some of the comments that were made by the Minister David Clark towards Dr Shane Reti, I felt that he insulted the integrity and the qualifications of Dr Reti and the work that he has done in this Supplementary Order Paper 178 to do with the eligibility and suitability of responsible persons. I feel that it was uncalled for. I think that for our caucus, Dr Reti gave us a very good oversight into this bill and where we should be going with it, and this Government should actually take note of some of the things that he has actually said.

I think that it’s one of those bills where this Government, once again, is saying “Trust us. We’re from the Government; we know what we’re doing.” Well, I’m afraid they don’t know what they’re doing. This is highly dangerous. I listened to the contribution from the Hon Michael Woodhouse around drug-driving and the way that—you know, it’s like everything; you push one button and then there is one of those concertina effects that goes right throughout the industry. Drug-driving, along with drunk-driving, is one of the worst things that happens on our roads, and people that are caught drug—well, as the Hon Michael Woodhouse says, if the person dies, then it is found THC is in their blood.

So all of these things, once this bill gets across the line—which I believe it will, because we don’t have the numbers to actually bat it back. We don’t have the numbers to bat it back, but I know that the people of this country are looking at this side of the House to actually make sure there are strict regimes around the suitability and eligibility of a responsible person. I look at the very areas that I come from and the results that marijuana has had on my family within the community that I come from—the results of that. This, to me, is going to open a gap for those that think that they can get in there to grow marijuana for medicinal purposes. I believe that we need to actually put some very strict criteria around that.

All the criteria around who should not be involved in this industry are clearly stated in clause 5. However, there are some areas within this bill that do not speak about the duration of the licence. How long should a person or an organisation hold a licence for? What are the criteria around the modification of those licences as time goes by? These are some of the questions that I’d like the Minister to answer. How does one apply? How long is the licence for? What is the regime for modification of those licences, and who will do that? We’re all talking about the Director-General of—I assume—Health that will take on this role, but at the end of the day, we need a broader group of people that are going to be part and parcel of this licensing regime.

When I look at the areas around storage undertaking activities in a specific location, which I covered slightly, and the cancellation of a licence—what are the rules around the cancellation of a licence? I don’t think that the Minister has actually traversed this area well. Thank you.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Senior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And it’s certainly my pleasure to stand and take a call on the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill. I’ve been in my office listening to this debate for several hours, and even standing here this morning listening to the contributions from this side of the Chamber, it seems to me that clause 7 that we are talking about has opened up a huge amount of discussion. And what has appeared to me is that there are so many questions that are unanswered in this legislation. I heard the Hon Dr David Clark earlier this morning talking about how he does not want to commit too many details to this bill because he doesn’t want to make any mistakes, and so there is going to be more consultation. Well, that says to me that this bill is not ready to pass through this House, and I actually believe that we should be pulling this bill from the discussion.

I felt that the comments made about the expertise of Dr Shane Reti were entirely—although Dr Clark said they were not meant to be critical, they absolutely were. We’re talking about a man who has been on the coalface of community health for many years. He has seen the impacts of the use of drugs in the communities that he’s served, overseas and here in New Zealand. He’s researched this bill very thoroughly and, as he’s said himself, talked to more experts in relation to this. To have a licensing regime that is rigid and attached to this bill before it passes through this House is completely appropriate. Now, a doctor of theology may pray to God that he’s got it right, but, actually, in legislation we need it to be written down on paper so that the community, the growers, and anyone that is associated with the production of medicinal cannabis has it clear in their mind what they are getting involved in. This is the thin edge of a wedge, and we need to get it right.

And, as the Hon Michael Woodhouse pointed out earlier, there are flow-on effects in other pieces of legislation if we do not get it right. Once we’ve opened this door, that horse has bolted and we need to make sure that if we are going to open this door to medicinal cannabis, and especially loose-leaf, that we have got some very tight, rigid licensing regimes in place.

For me, when I look at the licensing in the proposed bill, we are looking at 55 words that apply to it. Then when I look at Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 178, we’ve got 18 pages of detail. Now, it’s not a war of words and it’s certainly not a competition about how many words are contained in the SOP, but the detail that is in it is what the public would expect from good legislation. And there is nothing that I have found in SOP 178 about licensing that would caution me not to adopt this as part of the legislation. It not only applies to the licence holder but it also applies the same standards to employees of anyone that is involved in the manufacture, the production, and even the disposal of the product. That is completely appropriate from the community’s point of view. I would challenge the Government to come up with a very solid argument about why we cannot have licensing detail in this legislation as it is laid out here in SOP 178.

Now, the eligibility for a corporate to be a licence holder is also broken down so that the licence holder—if it’s a body corporate or a corporate body—must also nominate a specified person. So that specified person must also have the attributes that are laid out in SOP 178. They must have no other drug-related offences, they may not be associated with gangs, they must not have been involved in the crime of dishonesty as defined in the Crimes Act, and they must not have been convicted of an offence that has an imprisonment penalty of two years or more. That is completely appropriate. Thank you, Madam Chair.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to take a second call on this clause. I’d like to speak again to Dr Shane Reti’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 178 and to clause 8, which relates to “Location specified in application must be safe”. I think this is, again, an important—it’s clause 8 of the Supplementary Order Paper, dealing with the licensing regime, Madam Chair. This, again, is an important contribution by Dr Shane Reti to this debate and to this legislation because, again, in clause 7 of the bill, essentially, it just sets up that there should be regulations. What this clause here, which Dr Reti is trying to get the Government to agree to, suggests is that there should be locations which should be kept safe from the production of medicinal cannabis products. It says that it should be “1 kilometre away from an area specified by regulations as unsuitable to undertake the activities that are authorised by the licence”.

So what we have here is that we’re, essentially, saying that this is giving the ability for regulations to be put in place, but Parliament is clearly defining what those regulations should be doing. So it’s not just a blank cheque; it’s actually saying, “This is the direction that we want the regulations to go in.” We want to actually keep our residential areas five kilometres away from the production and any licensing regimes around the production of medicinal cannabis products, the growing of cannabis, and all of those things. We want to ensure, if the activities are conducted inside a building, that it must be one kilometre away from any area zoned as residential. What it is saying is, “Let’s set some clear direction around what these regulations should be and what they shouldn’t be.”

At the moment, what we have is a blank cheque being given to officials to go away and work on some regulations which could discuss issues like this—they may; they may not. There is actually no requirement on those officials to actually put in place any area-specific locations where these licensed premises can be placed. There is no direction as to where that could be, and so I am urging the Government to look seriously at this clause in the Supplementary Order Paper, because I know the conversation and the debate which will take place if this bill goes through Parliament with no direction from the Government or from Parliament as to where these licences should be or shouldn’t be.

I know there will be a huge community debate. There’ll be a huge number of people in New Zealand who will not want these licensed regimes near their house, near their children’s school, near their early childhood education (ECE) centre, near a community service, near drug and alcohol addiction areas. But what this SOP—and this particular clause in the SOP—says is, “Let’s instruct officials to work on what is a location which must be considered safe.” What is an area which we consider as not suitable for the production, manufacture, or otherwise of medicinal cannabis products? That’s what it is saying: let’s work out what these areas are. Let’s have a debate as to what those areas are, and then this clause says very clearly what the consequence of having those areas listed as unsuitable will be.

So there may be a whole wide range of areas which could be debated and discussed as being unsuitable. It could be drug and alcohol addiction services, it could be mental health services, it could be places of worship, it could be schools, it could be ECEs, it could be Work and Income offices, it could be a whole range of Government departments, it could be a range of different places which we, as a community, decide are areas we want to consider as being unsafe, or it could be very few of those. But what this clause does is say, “Let’s have a conversation around what those places should be or shouldn’t be.” Then very clearly the follow-on from that is that, if the activities conducted in that licensed premises are conducted outside a building, it will have to be five kilometres away from a zoned residential area, and if it’s conducted inside a building, at least one kilometre away. So that ensures it will be—[Time expired]

KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 178 in the name of Dr Shane Reti to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 177 in the name of the Hon Dr David Clark to clause 7 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 177 in the name of the Hon Dr David Clark to clause 7 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8 New section 35E inserted (Review and report on operation of section 7(2A) and (3A))

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. This clause is about a review, and, as we heard from Dr Craig in an earlier contribution, this provision in the bill makes the National Party’s call for a time limit on an exemption from prosecution somewhat redundant. Only, it doesn’t really. In fact, it’s a completely different thing. In the amendment to this clause on Supplementary Order Paper 177, new section 35E(1)(a) talks about “The Minister must, not later than 2 years after the commencement of this section, require the Ministry of Health—(a) to commence a review of the operation of sections 7(3A), 8(6A), and 13(1A)”.

Now, those sections are the exemptions from prosecution that have already gone through this committee stage, and those exemptions are for the possession or ingestion of substances or the possession of tools that could be used in the ingestion of illicit substances. So the purpose of this terminal exemption, according to the bill as it was introduced, was simply to provide a framework so that terminally ill people wouldn’t be prosecuted between when the bill passes and the introduction of a medicinal cannabis licensing regime. It’s very clear in the general policy statement: it’s “intended as a compassionate measure until affordable quality products are available”—until affordable quality products are available—“under a proposed medicinal cannabis scheme.” Now, the Minister—and I’m not sure if it’s gone through yet—in his amendment is also making sure that that licensing regime is in place within 12 months. That’s a heroic effort, I have to say, particularly if they don’t use the very good amendments that Dr Shane Reti has produced, although I have no doubt that ministry officials will be scrambling away, squirrelling away a few ideas, so that they can meet that 12-month deadline.

Now, after that, the licensing regime then has effect given to it. So while those medicinal cannabis manufacturers will probably be doing whatever preparatory work they think is necessary to get to the start line, it is, by their advice, necessary to probably take at least another 12 months to get manufacturing processes up and running, depending on the licensing of the product itself—not just the manufacturer but the authorisation of this as a medicine, which goes through another process all together. It could take the three years that the review comprises.

But then what happens? The Minister is only bound to report back to the House, and he’s not even asked by this clause to report back to the House on what happens next in respect of that exemption from prosecution. At section 35E(4)(b), it says the review must include recommendations to the Minister on “whether any amendments to those provisions are necessary or desirable.” He doesn’t even have to inform the House—although I hope he will—about whether, in his view, the terminal exemption is still necessary.

It sends a very clear signal to me that there is no intention to repeal this exemption. So what that will do is completely undermine the licensing regime. We will have people who are terminally exempt who are getting it from their—what are they called?—green fairies up the road.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Yep.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, Ms Swarbrick says, “Yep, that’s right. That’s what’s going to happen.” We accept that. We would have even supported it, had it had a time frame put on it, but now we know that the licensing regime will be up and running, the manufacturing process will be concluded, and the approval process for the legitimate medicines will be in place, but it’s not the Government’s intention to get rid of what they call a temporary exemption.

My question to the Minister is simply this: why—why on earth? What possible conditions would need to be in place in order for the Government to consider that that temporary exemption, after legitimate products have been manufactured and approved for prescription and sale—why would we still need this? What possible scenario could exist at that time—in three years’ time—that would warrant the continuation of the terminal exemption? I’d be very, very interested in the answer to that question.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Madam Chair. To continue that dialogue, the report on the terminal exception—which is what this clause talks to—needs to address a number of things. Again, you can’t list everything that should appear in a report, but I think it’s quite clear there are a number of really important things that we thought might have come up as being worthy of discussion in two years’ time, and I’ll come back to that two years’ time in the top part in a moment.

But, first of all, understand that the terminal exception and statutory defence is an incredible liberty on some of the judicial processes. For example, we know that under the terminal exception and the statutory defence, procurement of loose-leaf cannabis will be illegal but possession will be legal. Wow! I mean, is that entrapment if you encourage someone? Someone has to commit a crime for you to get what you want. Is that entrapment? That must be getting awful close, surely. I think it’s another discussion to have, and maybe the report could talk to that.

I think of how well the police are able to monitor and manage the terminal exception. We had some advice from them in the Health Committee that this was going to be a challenge. In fact, what they said to us was, “We hope that we can call up GPs who will go to their database and tell us, yes, this person sits under the terminal exception or not.” Wow! Think about that work flow. How does that happen? On weekends, are you going to find the GP? Does everyone have access to all of the information all of the time? What makes you think that there’s going to be a field on a GP database? Oh, but wait, you’ve spoken with GPs—no, you haven’t. We know that answer. Oh, but wait, you’ve spoken with software developers—no, you haven’t. We know that answer. There was just, again, another sparsity of detail around what that would look like, and I think the review on the terminal exception—which is what this clause is talking to—could well talk to those things.

Now, the terminal exception is a temporary scheme—we all agree that—and this comes down to temporality. How temporary? Not even a discussion of the broader issues of when—and the report could talk to this also—the temporary scheme finishes and a full-blown medicinal cannabis scheme starts, and my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse identified that in an earlier clause. What happens if, under the terminal exception at the end of that period—this is the discussion we want to have; when that period is—you’re OK and you’re able to possess, but when the medicinal cannabis scheme comes in the next day, you’re not? How is that transition going to work? No discussion—I think a report could talk about that. If in two years’ time, which is in the top part here as “not later than 2 years” in new section 35E(1), they are ready to conclude the terminal exception—this may be the guidance here that, actually, it’s envisaged in two years’ time. I’m drawing some indirect conclusions, but that’s possible. It would have been nicer to have just said it, if it was.

Now look, if it couldn’t be said and put in the legislation, our Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 179 does that. The 30 months that we’re proposing is, clearly, another six months past the two years written into this bill. So you could have a review and report in two years, draw your conclusions, and then terminate it six months later—OK? Again, how we got to that 30 months in SOP 179 was 12 months for the enabling legislation, 12 months from seed to sale—because the industry has told us that, roughly, it will take them 12 months to start cultivating, processing, and manufacturing, and then getting out into the retail environment. That’s presuming there’s a good approval mechanism through Medsafe for that to happen—unclear, and that’s exactly why we’re saying that should have more clarity. But, anyway, when you’ve done that, you’ve got to your two-year period, and then we think there’s another six months where you get slippage and some delays that are unaccountable. So our SOP 179 is totally consistent with this clause and the desire to have the report in two years’ time.

I’ve identified some of the issues that I think the report most certainly should address such as the ongoing illegal procurement of loose-leaf cannabis, but the legal possession should be addressed.

The police interface—how well have they managed that? Let’s see if in two years’ time, as we were told in select committee, GPs have a database the police can go into when they pull someone over and say, “Yes, this person meets the terminal exception.” That’s really hard. That talks to work flow. I’ve already indicated that that sort of work flow actually takes a lot of time and has a lot of unintended consequences. I would be pleased, but I’m doubtful, that that sort of work flow could be implemented in two years’ time. I’ve tried to do something similar overseas, and it’s a lot harder than it might be just to write this into the bill.

So I think, as this clause talks about review and report, we’ve put forward a solution. We’ve put forward something totally consistent with this clause, and we’d ask the Minister to consider that.

Hon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’m talking to this clause 8. Really, this clause highlights the misleading nature of this bill because it focuses on reviewing the exception and defence provisions, but it doesn’t even reference the far more extensive and the far more important medicinal cannabis regime. Of course, that regime is the result of the 29 words in the original bill that opens the door for this provision to be established.

As we’ve heard, clause 8 requires the Minister to instruct the Ministry of Health to review the exemption and defence provisions—that’s the new subsections (2A) and (3A) in section 7—and they must be reviewed within two years, only once, and I assume that that “only once” recognises the temporary nature of the exemption in the bill. Although we’ve discussed that with the Minister—we’ve discussed the importance of understanding the length of this temporary measure—the Minister is not prepared to include a sunset clause. So here we have a provision to review a temporary measure that only affects a very small number of people, whereas there’s absolutely no provision to review the substantive part of this bill, which is the medicinal cannabis scheme, which is a significant, important, and long-term change to our community.

The legislation required to deliver an effective, safe, and community-supported medicinal cannabis scheme is far more complex, far more detailed, and far more important than this exemption. What’s more, the medicinal cannabis scheme will affect thousands—perhaps even hundreds of thousands—of New Zealanders and maybe even people beyond our shores.

Now, the issues that Dr Shane Reti has identified in the bill and the legislation that he has worked on illustrate the complexity and the need for review of this particular part of clause 8. For example, his legislation—his bill—covers things like application for licences, granting a licence, eligibility for the licences, who should be able to have a licence—individuals, corporate bodies—and who’s responsible for them, the safety of the location, conditions and restrictions of licences, the standard conditions, control, and staff, how you can undertake things in a specified location, storage, and the requirement to work with the Director-General of Health. It also talks about reporting on that work and it also talks about—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Come to the debate.

Hon NICKY WAGNER: —offences. But I’m coming back—and the reason that I’m telling you all this is to emphasise the fact that this is significant, complex legislation, and yet there’s no opportunity to review it. We’re reviewing this tiny little bit, which is the exemption.

So it’s really all about priorities, and I believe that Parliament needs to be very aware of how we use our resources. We shouldn’t be making work. We shouldn’t be requiring our Minister and our departments to do things that won’t make any difference, and this amendment won’t make any difference. I think we need to be responsible also for things that are important to the people in our community. We need to carefully consider and we need to closely monitor and review significant legislation that is going to change the way that our society works, and in this case, that is the medicinal cannabis scheme.

So I don’t support the reviewing of the temporary exemption, but I do support a much more parliamentary supervision over the medical cannabis scheme and over how it’s developed and how it will work to make sure that it does deliver those high-quality products that we expect at a reasonable price, so that we can keep our communities safe. This clause fails on both counts.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to talk to clause 8 of the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill. I’ve got a number of points that I’d like to make in relation to new section 35E, which is proposed to be inserted by clause 8, and, essentially, the first point I’d like to make is that this is an inserted clause which really has no teeth and really does nothing. It says that “(1) The Minister must, not later than 2 years after the commencement of this section, require the Ministry of Health—(a) to commence a review of the operation of sections 7(2A) and (3A) since the commencement of those subsections; and (b) to prepare a report on the review for the Minister.”

Essentially, this is just another working group. It’s another working group. It’s going to have a look at the operation of the sections relating to the possession of cannabis by those with a terminal illness and—as has been outlined I think quite clearly already in relation to this—this is something which would, if it remained in place, undermine the effectiveness of a medicinal cannabis scheme by essentially allowing for the continued consumption of loose-leaf cannabis by those with terminal illnesses when there are available products in place already. So, essentially, the first point is it’s a working group. The second point is it’s not really going to actually do anything.

All that’s required, then, is for this review to be completed within 12 months—12 months. It’s got 12 months to work out whether to, basically, review those two sections and to see how they’ve been operating, and it’s only to comment on whether any amendments to those provisions are necessary or desirable and how it has been implemented. So, essentially, what we’ve got here is we’ve got two sections which allow for those with terminal illness to not be able to be criminalised—a defence is to be put in place—and then that will be reviewed no later than two years after it. That review could take up to one whole year for that to take place—one whole year—and then that review gets presented to the House of Representatives. It gets tabled here in Parliament, and all it will do is make some comments. It won’t have any teeth. It won’t do anything. All it will do is provide a document which will say that this section has been working and doing this, and whether any amendments may be necessary or desirable.

On this side of the House, what we see here are two sections which essentially allow people to use loose-leaf cannabis, and no ability and no power put into this legislation to actually say, “We will allow that to happen until such time as there are proper medicinal cannabis products in place.” You’re going to end up with companies looking at New Zealand and saying, “Where’s the certainty that I’m going to actually be able to provide these products and that those people that I can provide them legally to are not actually going to be undermined, and have my market completely undermined by green fairies and other people who decide to provide just loose-leaf cannabis to those people?” They’re essentially going to look at New Zealand and say, “Well, there’s no certainty for my investment. There’s no certainty around whether I will have a proper market going forward.” Essentially, they’ll decide, “Well, I won’t go to New Zealand; I’ll invest elsewhere and look at research and growing and providing medicinal cannabis products elsewhere.”

This Government and I think the Minister in the chair needs to articulate whether he believes that this section will just essentially allow for those provisions and that defence to be kept in place for a much longer period of time. Does the Government have some intent actually to review the operation of section 7(2)(a) and (3)(a) and whether they should actually be withdrawn, and, if so, why isn’t that put in place with a sunset clause or something else to actually say that after a number of years, those sections will no longer be available because we will have a properly certifiable, Medsafe-approved medicinal cannabis regime put in place, which provides proper medicine to those patients who request and who require it, so that they can actually access the medicinal cannabis products. That, on our side of the House, is what we believe is required in New Zealand and what we are arguing for through further passage of this legislation.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to clause 8. It’s really interesting, the focus on a sunset clause by the last contributor, Simeon Brown, because, in fact, this was the alternative to the committee’s deliberation on a sunset clause. I’d like to acknowledge the Hon Michael Woodhouse, a member of our committee, who particularly pushed for that. If anyone read our Health Committee report, we did actually contemplate a five-year sunset clause to reflect the provisions that, under this particular clause, the Minister will review, in acknowledgment that the exemption for those who require palliation was, in fact, an interim measure and it was a compassionate measure.

The committee, obviously, discussed the issue, but what the Minister and the officials have decided is that a better way to assess whether or not the particular clauses around exemption for those who have palliation are necessary should be via the mechanism that is before us. Hopefully, the Minister will be able to articulate why it was better for this process to be conducted, as opposed to the bill having a sunset clause in it.

I personally think that an assessment and analysis of those who actually have benefited from the exemption would be incredibly valuable. It would be valuable to know whether or not the police did engage with people receiving palliation, and whether or not those individuals had certificates from their doctors before it was required, or whether or not, in fact, as part of the process—and this was another debatable point within the select committee: should people who require access to medicinal cannabis and the exemption because of their terminally ill status and because they are receiving palliative care have to get that certificate in anticipation that the police may engage with them and charge them, or, actually, should it be a response to the police actually finding that they were using cannabis for medicinal purposes and therefore asking their clinician to verify, essentially, that they have a terminal illness and qualify under this particular section in the Act for the exemption?

There may be debates about whether or not the sunset clause was the better option—we certainly debated it in the select committee—but it’s pretty obvious, from my perspective, that the Minister and the ministry decided that it was an important part of the process for the Minister to, not more than two years after the commencement of this piece of legislation, undertake a review, and then, within 12 months of that review, report in to the House. I actually think that some of the transparency that the Opposition has been calling for in terms of this piece of legislation—once it is enacted, it should give them reassurance, hopefully, about why the exemption was needed in the first place.

As I said before, hopefully the Minister may be able to add a bit more in terms of whether or not reports such as these are standard, because I don’t know how often they have been used in the past. Are they for transparency reasons? What is the benefit of the Minister, in a situation like this, going through a process and then actually reporting it back, given that this whole bill has been, from my perspective, about creating a regime that does, to a degree, enable a sector of society to contravene laws that other members of society can’t, because they are facing a situation where they have a terminal illness. We know medicinal cannabis is of benefit to them, so we want to be able to see how robust this process has been, including that particular clause.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I’m happy to respond to the member Louisa Wall’s request for further comment on the review process outlined in the bill. I note that the sunset clause debate has occurred in clauses 1, 2, and 4. Certainly, in my notes we’ve discussed this several times, but not every member will have been following the debate right through, and this is the substantive issue for this part of the bill, so it’s absolutely entirely appropriate, and I’m quite happy to repeat the comments I’ve made before about this.

The idea around having a review and making the Minister responsible is that the Minister is, of course, responsible to this House for his or her actions, so the Minister can be held accountable through the House for that. It seems to me incredibly important that we have experts interacting with those who have been interacting with the bill who are able to assess the maturity of the supply scheme. The issues around price and availability that sparked the need for a supply scheme, the exemptions around illicit cannabis and how they are happening in real life, and, certainly, whether there’s anything around cannabidiol or alternate seeds that were already in New Zealand—all of those things, of course, can be reviewed by the Minister and looked at by the Minister.

It’s true that most licensing regimes are administered by officials. They seek expert advice and report to Ministers in many different portfolios on the practical implications of current practice, because if things are set up in regulation, it’s easier to quickly move if there’s a change in circumstance, such as new studies that reveal some products are dangerous or interact with others and that changes need to be made. Those can then be made promptly in a process that’s set down in regulation or in respect of a review, rather than bringing it back to the House and having to pass new legislation. So I think that point is made.

In terms of the sunset clause for use of illicit cannabis by those who are in palliation, in the final stages of life, or in life-ending conditions, I note that they will have the opportunity in the review to present their case, and we will have the opportunity to review the maturity of the supply at that stage.

Having a strict sunset cut-off may mean that if there are reasons for continuing with that regime, we would need to bring it back to the House and have another debate about it, where the matter could be much more simply and effectively dealt with straight away through a review. I think that has been canvassed, but it was worth canvassing again because it is an important part of this particular clause.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I thank the Minister for his contribution, but I’m not sure if I’m confused or if he is, because when he talked about the review, he used a scenario of the potential for products that might be harmful, or some other thing. But this review process is actually on the terminal exemption from prosecution for illicit substances. It won’t, in my understanding, have anything to do with the medicinal cannabis regime that’s being put in place by this bill. So, certainly, it did seem a little bit odd.

I want to acknowledge Louisa Wall for her chairing of not only this bill but the Health Committee generally, which is a collegial place. We weren’t able to agree that this bill should proceed, but that doesn’t mean that we didn’t have a very good discussion—including the one that the chair described in her last intervention—about the sunset clause. Was it five years ago that we first started talking about this? We weren’t able to get to that because there were other conditions for the progress of the bill. But she did use the words that this was to be “an interim measure” and that it was to be “a compassionate measure”, and I agree with that—particularly the “interim” bit. But she also referred to the response from police should somebody, even after the regime has been put in place, if it becomes unlawful again—whether or not it would be appropriate in the circumstances to prosecute.

But that’s only part of the conversation the select committee had, because we actually looked at the question of whether or not this terminal exemption was even necessary in the establishment of a medicinal cannabis regime because we now know the police aren’t doing that. If anybody can come up with one example of a person who meets the definition of palliation—it’s not 12 months any more, but it’s a terminal illness with death imminent—where police have successfully prosecuted that person for the simple act of smoking a joint, I will march beside them in protest at that action. But we knew it wasn’t happening—Mr Chambers came and told us that it wasn’t happening. So we are debating the question of whether there should be a review, but there’s an equal argument for whether we even need the provision.

On the matter of the cut-off and the five years, we would have been happy—in fact, we were discussing whether or not five years was too long or too short. Dr Reti has put in an amendment—defeated, I think—for 30 months and one day. We could have framed it to say let that exemption lapse on an event or on a milestone. It is possible to say “On the day after the first products become available on the market”, so that people don’t have to rely on illicit substances. We haven’t done that, either. I do accept the point the Minister made that a strict cut-off may well be problematic for that purpose, but that doesn’t stop us from negotiating a better description and clearer articulation of the policy intent, which is that this be temporary.

So I’ll ask the Minister again the question that I asked at the start, because he, in his last intervention, said there could be good reasons for continuing the terminal exemption regime. I’d just like to hear one of them.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): The member suggested that one of us might be confused. I am happy to say that I’m pretty clear on this. The palliation exemption—or the terminal exemption, as he refers to it—is a compassionate response to a shortage of supply. We know of affordable, quality products. We want to allow for the development of sufficient products of sufficient quality to address the relevant palliation circumstances and allow for the possibility that some of those palliation circumstances may not yet have sufficient quality or supply ready to address them, and that exemption may indeed need to continue. I would hope that it wouldn’t; it’s a compassionate response in the interim until the supply scheme is fully functional.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to make some comments in relation to the dialogue which is taking place around this review, and just ask some further questions in relation to what the Minister of Health, who has just sat down, has said in relation to the compassionate approach and the desire to focus on quality supply issues. I would like to ask the Minister: if the purpose of the section is to ensure that there is a focus on quality of products and supply and, I guess, the price of products in the market, why is this review not focused around those terms? The terms of this review seem to be on whether these amendments are necessary or desirable. It doesn’t say anything about whether there has become enough supply or whether there have become enough quality, affordable products in the market to ensure that that exception is no longer required.

Basically, what it says here is just “whether any amendments to those provisions are necessary or desirable.” So I’d like to ask the Minister why the language is not clear in this section—saying “Let’s focus on reviewing these sections until there is enough supply, until there is enough quality, affordable products.”—and why don’t we do that on a two-year, rolling basis to ensure that that actually takes place? If the purpose of this legislation is to drive the market towards producing quality, affordable medicinal cannabis products, just having one review in two years’ time is not going to cut it—just having the one review, which is not even going to be at the point in time when, as Dr Shane Reti has very clearly outlined to the committee, the market has been able to establish manufacturers and distributors, has had time to be able to put in place regimes, where the doctors and the pharmaceutical industry are equipped to be able to distribute these products. Two years is not going to be enough time, let alone for the regulations to be put in place and debated and consulted on and discussed.

So my question to the Minister is whether he would accept, I guess, a Supplementary Order Paper which would look at amending it to something along the lines of “Every two years, this must be reviewed.”, and I would also suggest that the review period should be reduced quite substantially from taking a whole year. I’d like to know why the Minister believes that a review should take a whole year in relation to whether these two sections should be in place, and why the review would take that much time. I understand it’s a complex and important issue, but I very much question the need for that review to take a whole year for it to then come back to the Minister and then to be reported to the House.

So those questions, I think, really do go to the crux of what is actually intended with this bill. Are we intending, as a Parliament, to put in place quality, affordable medicinal cannabis products which will be provided and also given to patients who qualify for them, who require them, where doctors and pharmacists and nurses are able to be part of a conversation and able to prescribe products to assist in pain relief or other measures, or are we actually putting in place a twofold regime where, yes, we will have those products, but alongside that we’re essentially decriminalising cannabis and loose leaf at the same time? If that’s the purpose, let’s be honest about it and let’s just have a conversation. I know the Government’s going to have a conversation about that in a referendum, but let’s have those conversations openly and honestly and with some transparency.

So I urge the Minister to consider my recommendation to have the review on a regular basis—not just once, but every two years—because that would at least provide some more assurance to this House the intent of the Minister, which he’s just said is to ensure there’s a quality, affordable medicinal cannabis medicine process and market products available to the community. That would give some more assurance to his words, because at the moment this legislation, essentially, will leave two pathways—two markets of products—available in New Zealand. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I’ll just respond immediately to the member Simeon Brown’s questions. He refers to new section 35E(4)(b), in clause 8—“whether any amendments to those provisions are necessary or desirable.”—and constructs the argument: why would you have those few words when you could have many more? My view is that simple, clear legal drafting is preferable.

To his second question about why a review should take a year, if he reads closely, in subsection (2), it says “within 12 months” it must be completed. I would contend that it’s useful to have that flexibility to ensure that consultation during that review process is thorough, that the appropriate experts are consulted, and that the review is completed properly.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 179 in the name of Dr Shane Reti to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 177 in the name of the Hon Dr David Clark to clause 8 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

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 8 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Amendments agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 8 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 64

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Clause 8 as amended agreed to.

New clause 8AA Section 37 amended (Regulations)

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Dr Shane Reti’s amendment to Supplementary Order Paper 177 to insert new clause 8AA is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

New clause 8A New section 37A inserted (Regulations setting minimum quality standards)

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. There is a supreme irony in this new clause, in respect of the licensing regime. The famous 59 words—at least, in the bill as it was introduced and considered by the Health Committee—used the term “licensing”. We have debated and removed what was their clause 7, and our new clause 8A doesn’t—as far as I can tell—even make reference to licensing. What this is now called is “Regulations setting minimum quality standards”. The description of which regulations should be put in place refers only and solely to the product. There’s a little more detail there which kind of makes a bit of a mockery of the Minister of Health’s comments about adherence to regulatory rigidity, which he accused our Supplementary Order Paper of having. Indeed, he himself is now doing what I think should be done, which is guide officials at least in getting from the start line to a regime, but that’s not a comprehensive guidance. It talks about the ability to make a regulation. They may prescribe quality standards; the process by which the product is cultivated, manufactured, produced, supported, or supplied; it may be made generally to something which is an imported product or class of products; and so on.

Here’s what it doesn’t do, and here’s what the whole framework no longer does, even in an oblique way: it doesn’t refer to any sort of standard for the people and the place and the restrictions that could go not on the product but on the whole process. So, in my ignorance of the Medicines Act or any other prevailing legislation that may have that in it and therefore cover those things as standard practice for the development of a medicine—because I can’t think there would be much to be gained by a fit and proper person test for the manufacture of aspirin—I don’t imagine the manufacture of aspirin within a kilometre of a school is of particular note, and, therefore, I doubt whether the Medicines Act actually speaks to that.

So where the Minister has been so insistent that we free the officials up and not rigidly constrain them in their practice of developing the regime, we have taken away any sort of fetters, except on the quality of the product. But the product itself is cannabis, and it, appropriately, should have some expectations placed on it for the people and the place and the co-location with other things that I now am a bit lost about because the Minister and the Government are not prepared to take Dr Reti’s good advice on this and have those things included. That’s fine, that’s their prerogative, but they do need to explain to the public of New Zealand and to this House why it’s not important to them whether or not a cannabis factory can be beside the local school. I can be pretty sure that if we do pass a piece of legislation that has those conditions placed on it, then it’s almost certain that the public is going to be concerned about that.

What about planning rules? Is it going to be necessary for local council planning rules to introduce a new set of criteria for, for example, resource consenting manufacturing of this type? Does this constitute a farming activity? Who knows? I don’t and I won’t after this bill is passed, and neither will the officials, because they’re focused only on the quality of the product. It seems entirely incongruous that we do that to the extent of things like traffic laws, Resource Management Act laws, Medicines Act laws, and fit and proper person guidelines. I’m even more confused than ever.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Chair. This particular clause sort of gets to one of our two main issues that we have with this bill. We’ve already talked about our concerns with smoked loose-leaf and how that’s going to migrate from the terminal exception and statutory defence into the full-blown medicinal cannabis scheme. We have significant concerns around that. But, really, our biggest fall-over issue was this blank scope—this empty, vacuous void of nothing—around what a medicinal cannabis scheme will look like. And here is the Government’s solution to that: setting regulations for minimum quality standards—those regulations still to be determined.

NGOs, industry, everyone in the sector are all looking for more guidance than a blank cheque that regulations and unnamed officials will write on, as Matt Doocey described—a blank cheque—to define the minimum quality standards for a medicinal cannabis scheme. All we see here that starts to talk to it that’s different from its original version are a few words—“cultivation”, “manufacturing”—but nothing around processing; I don’t know if the Minister knows that it’s actually a step in the manufacturing process. It is unclear whether that’s part of manufacturing, where boxing and labelling comes in. I mean, these are some of the details that you’d reasonably expect to be described in a medicinal cannabis scheme, and which we do describe. Again, this is a huge disappointment to industry. They’re wanting more than just what you’ve asked of us—“Sign this off; we’ll figure it out in a few years.”

We didn’t need intense detail. Yes, we did do the work and can produce that. We could have got by with a framework that roughly described licensing, fit and proper persons, location, and manufacturing as a whole, taking into account cultivation, processing, and manufacturing, and then other parts that are not in this bill—something around dispensing distribution. We could have maybe got alongside with that, but the Minister and the Government have refused to move off “Leave it with us—we know best.” For a sensitive topic like cannabis, for a really important issue which commences cannabis reform in this country, nothing—“Leave it with us.” That is a huge disappointment to me; it’s a huge disappointment to the sector.

We’ve offered, and we’ve brought to this table already—we continue to offer—some detail and some thinking around how to manage this. We offer detail and thinking around fit and proper persons: what a licence holder might have to have as minimum eligibility qualifications. We don’t think that’s unreasonable; it’s consistent with international best practice. We also have some eligibility criteria around what an employee might have, and we also think that to be reasonable as well.

We give much greater detail around the minimum quality standards, particularly for pharmaceutical production. We’re considered “near pharmaceutical”, but our discussions with industry suggested that that was probably not the way to go, particularly since a large part of industry is looking to export. Just by the way, there’s probably not enough critical mass in the medicinal cannabis environment in New Zealand for an industry to be sustainable. Most will need to export. Therefore, most will need to be GMP-compliant, and every day we wait for these unnamed officials to spend two years to come up with what they think is best, absent from parliamentary oversight, absent from significant public scrutiny, although we are hearing of some advisory panels. I understand that the proposed Minister’s advisory committee is so far late that it’s sort of not believable, so we’ll see how real that becomes.

But, certainly, those sorts of standards that we believe our export industry will require—and I would also add that every day we wait, we lose market share to Australia, who earlier this year said, “We want to be the cannabis producers of the Southern Hemisphere.” Well, good luck—another two years before we get substantive descriptions around how our own producers can do anything. We bring to the table, through our work and through our Supplementary Order Papers, knowledge and a background and a consensus and an international review of parts of these things that we want to help the Government with. We still wanted to. We’ve been told no.

So we challenge the Minister in a very sort of urgent way to maybe discuss when we might see some of the quality standards. Might we see something in January next year, in the next quarter? Oh, wait, there’s a time line that was put out here: in 2020, there might be some standards where we might be able to start cultivating. Well, that schedule is already six months late, so can the Minister describe: is he on schedule with his published time line, or are we already behind, and how far behind? I think it would be useful, as we address the weakness and the lack of detail around the minimum quality standards, if the Minister could at least address that issue.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to address a couple of points raised by Dr Reti and the Hon Michael Woodhouse. Dr Reti raised concerns about unnamed officials—he likes to repeat this phrase—consulting on this regime. These are experts. We’ve canvassed this in many of the clauses so far through the debate. But we would expect that the consultation with industry and with users and with wider stakeholder groups would be thorough, and that is one of the big differences between what he’s proposing, which is a templated thing that Parliament signs off that the politicians make a call on, versus actually getting this right for our exporters and those who have an interest in the regime and are consulting fully and thoroughly to make sure there are no unintended consequences. We’ve canvassed some of those in previous clauses—potential unintended consequences of Mr Reti’s proposed regime.

Both Dr Reti and the Hon Michael Woodhouse raised concerns about stuff that is not in the bill. Michael Woodhouse said that the part doesn’t refer to licensing, and in fact under new section 37A(1)(b) in clause 8A, it does refer explicitly to a licence granted under the Act. But his general point was that a full licensing regime is not set out here. That’s because it’s not needed—it’s under section 37 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. He asked for clarification on that. That legislation is already laid out in the existing legislation; we don’t need to duplicate it here. Likewise, Dr Reti raised things around labelling regimes, licensing, dispensing—well, all of that is covered in the Medicines Act, Dr Reti. So these things are already, at law, described for medicinal products. There is no need to duplicate that in this legislation.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. I want to address a few of the points that have been raised, predominantly by my colleagues across the Chamber in Opposition. But I firstly just want to speak to the crux of what we are debating in this clause, that being clause 8A, and celebrate the fact that in this clause we have managed to get two substantive amendments to the legislation—two of three substantive amendments to the legislation—they being the inclusion of local native strains of cannabis in Aotearoa New Zealand but also the amendment which will guarantee that we have these regulations made public and functioning within a year.

I wanted to address the point made by Dr Shane Reti with regard to best practice, and just, once again, drive home that whilst I recognise and actually quite deeply respect the huge amount of research that he’s done in travelling overseas, we’re both aware, as most people who are engaged in this dialogue across the committee are, that there are a number of different ways that we can go about producing this regulatory scheme, as there are a huge breadth of different experiences in different jurisdictions. That best practice, I think, is to a certain extent subjective. It depends what the outcomes are that we’re looking for, and I think that if we were, for example, to measure it against the key performance indicator of perhaps who’s able to access it and who it works well for—the efficacy of the system—and whether we manage to make a dent or a reduction in the black or illegal market, all of those different things are variables to take into account when we are considering the notion of best practice.

To that point, I wanted to address the concerns that have been raised time and again with regard to the delegation for the creation of these powers to the Ministry of Health. We’ve heard that we’re supposedly throwing them away to faceless officials. I’m not sure who the National Party thought were making laws or legislation when they were in power. But it is indeed, you know, the people who are behind the scenes who are producing the research and the evidence which informs the decisions that we end up making as lawmakers. This is incredibly important, because there is going to be an expert body that is going to come together and consult with the public and with stakeholders in the production of the regulations that we end up putting forward by the end of next year.

That is an important point, because I mean we’ve actually already been through quite thorough consultation in the creation of this legislation—that being the select committee process, which many members from different parties in this House were involved in. But I also wanted to drive home the point that I made earlier, which was raised in debates by Dr Shane Reti, around the tighter regulatory framework which he proposed in his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). To that point, he raised the types of persons who may be involved or engaged in the industry as it develops, and I just, again, wanted to drive home the concerns about inequity and about Te Tiriti o Waitangi when we are looking at excluding people who have already served their time for being convicted under, for example, the Misuse of Drugs Act, but also those people who are looking at turning over a new leaf and looking to those different jurisdictions that Dr Shane Reti refers to. The types of people in those more conservative jurisdictions who are presently benefiting and profiting from a medicinal cannabis industry are quite different from the demographics who’ve been targeted and penalised under the war on drugs.

I also wanted to refer explicitly to one of the stakeholders who’s already been raised in this debate—that being Manu Caddie of Hikurangi Enterprises, who I referenced earlier, stating that I’d had spoken to him this morning. He mentioned that he thinks that what is being proposed in the Government legislation is actually far superior than what was proposed in the SOP, and that is because of those concerns around inequity but also the potential stifling proposed in the SOP around community-based organisations getting a foothold in this market and it not being something that can be captured by the likes of “Big Pharma”. So, finally, I just wanted to say that we’re really happy—stoked, if I may say—with the inclusion of native strains, which is something that the Greens advocated for strongly on the basis of what has been raised actually by stakeholders, and also with the narrowing of the time line and the clarity provided to the industry and to patients within 12 months.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Chair—just to address some of those points and the Minister’s response. First of all, notably, while we’re talking time lines around minimum quality standards, I note that the Minister refused to address the question I put to him around if the time line which he published—which is currently in the public domain—is kept to or if it’s already got slippage.

Secondly, I think the question that the member Chlöe Swarbrick, who’s just taken her seat, puts out—the issue that they addressed around encouraging local manufacturing by allowing domestic strains—has some merits, and I think we would support that. We want to be supportive of our local manufacturing community. The issue and the problem, and what needs more detail, is this: every strain of cannabis in New Zealand at the moment came here illegally. The only way you could get a strain into New Zealand was to breach our biosecurity border and bring it in illegally. So what other countries have done when they’ve confronted this is they’ve said, “Look, we want to support our domestic industry because if people have to bring strains from offshore, they’ll pay a levy.” We know that levy can be 10 percent or more—very expensive—and, automatically, the goal you’re trying to achieve, which is affordability and accessibility, starts to decrease.

So what other countries have done is they’ve introduced an amnesty which said, “OK, we acknowledge that all our domestic strains came here illegally. We accept that, but we also accept that there may be some strains that are suitable for commercial manufacture.” I’m understanding and I’m hearing that there may be four or five commercial strains suitable and able to be ramped up for commercial manufacture. So what other jurisdictions have done is said “OK, accepting that, we want to support the local environment. We want to help avoid overseas fees if we can. What we’ll do is we’ll have an amnesty period.”, which is actually quite short—sometimes a period of two weeks, I think I’ve seen overseas. It’s an amnesty period where if you are growing a domestic strain illegally, over that amnesty period you can register your strain. Now, it’s deliberately short so that people don’t cross the border knowing that eventually you’ll be able to use domestic strains, and this is part of my concern here now that this has been flagged. And I get the principle and support the principle, but there’s more detail to make it really good.

The detail that’s missing here is: is there an amnesty period? How long will it be for? And I think that leads to greater discussions relevant to this clause, around biosecurity and probably a bit further down that path—that’s where I need to go here. But, really, the main point I’m getting at is several things. First of all, being supportive of our local environment, our local manufacturers—supportive that there may be some domestic strains here illegally that are suitable for commercial production—and therefore supportive of the intent of this clause, but is there an amnesty period and, if so, how long will that be? Does the Minister take into account—has he considered—our biosecurity risk, having flagged that we will allow domestic strains? Has he communicated with our biosecurity, border, and other officials that we will be permitting domestically acquired medicinal cannabis seeds—that we’ll be authorising them in some way? What is his plan for that is my question.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I will respond to the key point that Dr Reti has raised: amnesty on strains. I’ll be guided by expert advice and international best practice on that, or I’d expect that the oversight body would be.

I do also want to acknowledge the member Chlöe Swarbrick and the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand for their push to have the inclusion of these local native strains. This is a coalition Government that’s working well together, and there are many great things that have come to this bill as a result of the other parties contributing. I just want to acknowledge that in this committee of the whole House.

I also want to say that we will be making the regulations public and available within a year, as the member Chlöe Swarbrick said, and, again, I thank the Green Party for that contribution.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to take a call on new section 37A, which is proposed to be inserted by clause 8A. I’d just like to challenge the assertion made by the member Chlöe Swarbrick, who said something along the lines of “Who was it who wrote all the legislation and passed all the legislation in the last Government?” Well, it was the National Government. It was the Ministers. It was the members of Parliament, who are responsible for the legislation. We are the ones in this House. We debate the legislation. It is Parliament’s job as legislators to debate legislation and to understand its impact, and to be able to have that discussion and debate, because, at the end of the day, we are responsible for the passing of it, and we can’t just pass the buck on to officials and pass the buck on to other people. Yes, they may assist in the process and may be able to provide advice on the process, but we are ultimately the decision makers, as Parliament, when it comes to regulation and when it comes to legislation, and that is why it is so important that as parliamentarians, we pass legislation which provides clear direction as to what the intent of Parliament is in a particular bill or on a particular topic.

That is why the National Party has serious questions about this clause, which inserts new section 37A, which has broad powers to be given to the Minister. The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations to prescribe the minimum quality standard that must be set by a product or class of products that contain a controlled drug that can be cultivated, manufactured, produced, imported, or supplied under a licence. The Minister got up before and said, “Well, we’ve already got section 37, so we don’t need to include in this section some additional aspects of what Shane Jones”—sorry—“Shane Reti has been advocating in his SOP.” Dr Shane Reti actually beat the other guy, and justifiably so. He is far superior in his knowledge and his expertise in a wide array of fields, including this one here.

So I’d like to ask the question about whether section 37 will provide adequate ability for the Minister to recommend regulations which focus on the location of where licences can be placed and whether exclusion zones around residential zones will be able to be put in place under the regulations, because what I read here is that this is about products and classes of products; it doesn’t deal with issues relating to where those licences can be, where the people who have a licence to cultivate, manufacture, produce, or import can actually locate their premises. All of those issues around whether there should be an exclusion zone—can those regulations be put in place under this new section 37A that the Minister has here on the Table in his Supplementary Order Paper? And also whether the Minister will be able to put in place regulations which actually deal with fit and proper persons and what type of regulations that might include.

So will the Minister be able to recommend to the Governor-General regulations which say that people who have a criminal history won’t be able to be part of the cultivation, manufacture, production, or importation of medicinal cannabis? Will the Minister be able to put in place regulations to that effect? Clearly, in this bill we don’t get any indication as to who should or shouldn’t be able to have a licence. There is nothing in here which determines whether someone should or shouldn’t be able to have a licence to produce medicinal cannabis products. So no doubt the officials who will be working on these regulations will potentially be doing something, and the Minister might be interested in that.

So I guess that’s another question: is the Minister interested in regulations which will deal with whether someone is a fit and proper person, and, if so, what will be the extent of that? Under what section will that be provided under the current Misuse of Drugs Act to allow him to be able to do that, and what subsection of that section will give him the power to be able to do that? So those are two questions: one is about the fit and proper person and the second is around locality.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Just let me address those points; they have been addressed before. Section 37 is where that material is, as the member says. He can read the Act in detail himself if he wants to find the subsection. I can assure him it’s in there, because I’ve seen it.

The Order in Council is a mechanism under regulation to ensure that we have the right people who are able to have a licence, as he indicates. Again, that means that there’s Cabinet oversight of this decision making and answerability in this House, so that’s an argument in favour of the approach we’ve taken. I note that and thank the member.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I appreciate that the Minister has touched on this point, which I raised earlier, around the regulation-making powers, but all he points to is section 37. Now, under section 37, there is a range of subsections—his officials are there behind him—and I’d like to know under what subsection of section 37 will the Minister be able to put in place regulations which deal with locality of premises and of fit and proper persons. I hope that the Minister now has that information and will supply that to the House.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I want to continue the conversation about section 37 because the Minister has—and rightly so—put the replies to my initial questions about why this bill doesn’t contain much more detail about this licensing regime. It’s all going to be down to two things—it’s all going to be down to the officials, and there’s already sufficient guidance in section 37 of the Misuse of Drugs Act—and yet there are no provisions on the things that Mr Brown has raised. But if there are, what he is suggesting—because, effectively, the officials came and told us that the reason we need to add to the Misuse of Drugs Act for the provision of cannabis-based medicines is that there isn’t a minimum quality standard for such a product to be manufactured. I don’t actually agree with that. I think the Misuse of Drugs Act is clear that the regulations can be made to do a number of things, and in section 37(1)(a) or (b)—I can’t remember now; I’ve just lost it—there is an ability, albeit a slightly vague one, for quality standards to be established.

Indeed, one would like to think that that was the case for any controlled drugs that were going to be turned into prescription medicines. Of course, we’re not breaking that new ground, if you like, because we already do this with opioid-based products where the opioids on the black market are illegal and they’re class A drugs, which raises the obvious question: what on earth are we doing here? We’ve got a terminal exemption that the police told us they don’t need because they’re not prosecuting terminally ill people, and we’ve got now a regulation setting quality standards that we don’t need because the Minister himself told us it’s already in section 37 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. And even if it were needed, why, Minister, does it in clause 8A, new section 37A, have the word “may” littered through it? It says, “Without limiting section 37, the Governor-General may, by Order in Council … make regulations”. It “may” contain regulations to prescribe minimum quality standards: “(3) Regulations made under this section may—(a) apply generally to a product or class of products;”.

There’s no compulsion here at all, which means we’ve spent months debating an unnecessary and, I would suggest, virtue-signalling piece of legislation. Why? Because this Government wanted to look good in its first 100 days. The officials told us, and now we have it conceded to by the Minister—although I don’t think he intended to—that there is no basis for changing the law. We have the Misuse of Drugs Act, we have the Medicines Act, we have the commensurate regulations, and we have a benevolent New Zealand Police service that is not arresting and locking up terminally ill patients who have a joint. What a waste of time.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Senior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 177 in the name of the Hon Dr David Clark to insert new clause 8A be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 64

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; Ross.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9 Schedule 2 amended

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Chair. Clause 9 is mostly administrative. It talks to some of the subsets, if you like, of cannabinoids, particularly tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol (CBD). As we’ve already expressed previously, and as I believe, cannabidiol is a product that as a National Government we had increased access to. It used to require ministerial discretion and a whole range of other compliance hurdles, and in our hands, we indicated that cannabidiol, we believed, had a safety profile that was OK—more specifically, that it has negligible psychoactive properties. In fact, if you go to New York, around Central Park, you’ll see CBD lollipops. Now, I don’t think we want to go that far because we’re still of the belief that the cannabinoid products are fundamentally a medicine, but it does reinforce the point that there’s a range of evidence that CBD, cannabidiol, may, in fact, be safe.

Furthermore, not just safe. There’s no point having something that’s just safe; it may well be effective. It seems to be particularly effective in inflammatory, maybe more than anti-spasm sorts of conditions, and we certainly believe what we’re told—that it has negligible psychoactive properties.

Now, it turns out there are many parts of the cannabinoids that may well be required and a cannabidiol may well be a better product with a little bit of THC in, and in an earlier clause the committee of the whole House passed through THC analogues. This is, in effect, called the entourage effect, also known as potentiation. What happens there is the CBD is potentiated—it’s made better—by a little bit of THC. In fact, it also counteracts some of the negative side effects of CBD, and CBD does the same for THC.

So what we’re seeing here in this clause is we’re seeing CBD being asserted around the tetrahydrocannabinols. We can see other variations, or isomers, stereotactil changes, if you like, in a chemical being considered consistent with the initial base of that chemical—that’s what an isomer is—and what we’re saying here in one of the schedules is basically that isomers of tetrahydrocannabinol that are non-psychoactive or otherwise very, very similar to the core base, that we’re going to group them all together. So administrators—a lot of chemical mumbo-jumbo in here, but I think it does tighten up parts of this. It doesn’t talk to some of the other cannabinoids that may have a role in the benefits that we’re looking for in medicinal cannabis—the terpenes, for example.

It seems to be that there may be an entourage effect with the terpenes, besides CBD and THC. It’s not clear to me that that’s covered in this sort of description, but it may need someone more chemically and legislatively analytical than I am to say, “Yes, that’s included.” I’m just highlighting that what we know now about CBD and THC probably includes some of the other cannabinoid products like the terpenes.

There are also other parts of the whole plant that we heard in the Health Committee may well have some benefits. Again, I’m a man of science, so I’d need to see the sort of evidence around that. They’re not described here because they’re not well described out in the environment, either, so that may be something that needs to follow. Also, I guess this whole clause raises the question as to when there’ll be some scientific background or some scientific contribution—maybe even from a chemical analyst or engineer—on the medicinal cannabis advisory committee that the Minister has spoken about. It would seem that we want to bring the best of science and the best practice to this task, and, as we’re seeing here, it can be quite complex.

So, fundamentally, this clause is dealing with issues that do have some background—issues that we can understand and the general public can understand. We’ll be interested to see if it picks up some of the other products, other cannabinoid components, that aren’t specifically mentioned as to whether they might otherwise be incorporated in further legislation, or whether the belief is that they’re incorporated here. The question, then, for those people who believe there are other parts of the whole plant besides THC and besides CBD—does this clause speak to them, as well? Thank you.

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 9 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 9 as amended agreed to.

New clause 9A New Schedule 6 inserted

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Dr Shane Reti’s amendment to Supplementary Order Paper 177 to insert new clause 9A is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Clause 10 agreed to.

New Schedule

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Dr Shane Reti’s amendment to Supplementary Order Paper 177 to insert new schedule 6 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Main amendments

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you. I am looking forward to debating this bill in the committee of the whole House. This is a very important bill because the Reserve Bank is a fundamental tenet of the arrangements that we have in place to make sure that we’ve got fiscal sustainability in New Zealand. The Reserve Bank, acting as an independent unit, largely oversees monetary policy, although it has a range of other operational requirements to fulfil. But its prime role is to oversee monetary policy and exercise that right by the setting of the official cash rate (OCR). Of course, many people realise the importance of the OCR, which is setting the daily cash rate that banks have to pay for their overnight deposits with the Reserve Bank. That, in itself, is the underpinning for interest rates for all of New Zealand, and that in turn makes a significant contribution to the foreign exchange rate of New Zealand and how it’s valued overseas.

So this bill is interesting in that for some reason—one of the questions I’ll be looking forward to asking Minister Clark is to tell us why this change is required, and there are a number of changes. The first is around the issue of giving the Reserve Bank a dual mandate. Most people will be aware that—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I apologise to the member for interrupting him, but it has come time for me to report progress.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill with amendment, progress on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Monetary Policy) Amendment Bill, and no progress on the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 12.56 p.m. (Thursday)