DARIEN FENTON (Labour) : I appreciate the chance to take a call on the Climate Change (Transport Funding) Bill, and I am pleased that Labour is supporting the bill going to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I congratulate Jeanette Fitzsimons on her bill and I acknowledge how frustrating it must have been to have the bill stuck on the Order Paper since November 2007. I sympathise with that position somewhat. I went through a similarly lengthy process with my own bill, only to have it fall at the third hurdle when National failed to give political support in the Committee stage to a $15 an hour minimum wage.

Labour supports this bill because we are seriously concerned about the Government’s funding direction away from an integrated, multimodal approach that includes a significant role for public transport. The risk that that direction poses to important projects and priorities such as the electrification of Auckland rail, integrated ticketing, and walking and cycling facilities is very worrying—particularly for Auckland. I believe that National has set public transport back, but not only in Auckland. We want to ensure that by supporting the bill the debate is kept alive. We know that people support public transport because it is transport that backs people rather than penalises them. As an Aucklander I know that billions of dollars more spent on roading, as proposed by National, will not solve the problem. We cannot keep on building more and more roads and motorways, and filling them up. There is a better plan: investing in public transport.

We had the ludicrous situation recently whereby cyclists and walkers spent endless efforts to get agreement from the Government to walk across Auckland Harbour Bridge in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the bridge. It is our bridge. One would think that people would be able to walk and cycle across it just once. They could not get the Government to agree to that, and inevitably the people who gathered to politely ask whether they could walk or cycle across the bridge on that special day lost patience and simply did it. The only action we saw from the New Zealand Transport Agency and the Government on the 50th anniversary of the Auckland Harbour Bridge was a conference. They hosted a conference with the theme “Bridges Linking Communities” to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the bridge. I am certain very important things were talked about there, but the most important question was left unanswered: how will the lack of investment in public transport, cycleways, and walkways help link communities? It was left to Labour to organise the only other public event celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Harbour Bridge. It was left to Labour to hold a tribute for the three workers who died building the bridge and for the thousands of workers who have worked on the bridge to maintain it and paint it ever since.

Why does the National Government believe that the only good transport spending is money spent on roads? Why is it so hard for the Minister of Transport to get his head around 21st century thinking? John Key thinks cycling is good, but only as long as it is on his national cycleway. John Key thinks party central for the Rugby World Cup in Auckland in 2011 is good, as long as no one expects integrated ticketing to get around Auckland. When it comes to cycling, walking, and public transport, we are now in no man’s territory. This Government thinks roads are the only way to solve transport congestion in the future. We are going backwards, yet Auckland public transport patronage has never been higher. The Northern Busway has been a runaway success.

I am interested to hear whether the member for Auckland Central, Nikki Kaye, makes a comment. I would like to know what she has done since the election about integrated ticketing. She might be able to tell us. She promised to untangle what she then called the alphabet soup of transport funding. Nikki Kaye told the electorate of Auckland Central before the last election that a transport smart card would be a high priority for her as an MP for Auckland. She said she would be knocking on doors to hurry things up. Well, did she knock on the door of Minister Steven Joyce? I suspect that if she had there was no answer, he was not listening, and no one was home when she called. I feel some sympathy for that member, like Melissa Lee, because when it comes to National members listening to their backbench MPs, there is silence. It is a very difficult lesson for those MPs.

The bill is important to keep debate alive and to keep hope alive for the sensible people of New Zealand, and particularly those in Auckland who know that a viable, well-supported and funded public transport system is an important part of our transport network. They know it is an important part of future productivity and they know that in this era we need to seek new solutions, not the old National remedies of the past. Thank you.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) : I am pleased to speak on the first reading of the Climate Change (Transport Funding) Bill. The purpose of this bill is to alter the funding priorities of the National Land Transport Fund over time so that after 5 years funds are allocated mainly to travel demand management and infrastructure, and to services supporting transport modes other than the private motor vehicle. National will be opposing this bill. This Government supports public transport and a modal shift over time, but we also recognise that fewer than 6 percent of New Zealanders actually use it on a regular basis. The facts are that around 70 percent of all freight in New Zealand goes by road, and about 84 percent of people go to work by car, truck, or motorbike. We need good roads in order to grow and compete.

Our State highways represent 11 percent of our roading network but they cater for around 50 percent of traffic. Large chunks of our roading network are clogged with bottlenecks and delays, inevitably leading to cost escalations that stifle economic growth. Accordingly, the Government will invest an extra $1 billion in the State highway network over the next 3 years with the release of its revised Government Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding. Funding for State highway construction has significantly increased on levels indicated in the previous Government policy statement to 35 percent of the National Land Transport Fund, with over $1 billion of additional investment going into the network over the next 3 years. The National Land Transport Fund will provide around $10.7 billion over 10 years for investment in State highways, reflecting the importance of the network to New Zealanders. We have announced roads of national significance: Pūhoi to Wellsford, completion of the Auckland western ring route, the Auckland - Victoria Park bottleneck, the Waikato Expressway, the Tauranga eastern corridor, the Wellington northern corridor from Levin to Wellington on State Highway 1, and Christchurch motorway projects.

We have realigned the transport budget to reflect the realities of how New Zealanders get around. The changes on the scale proposed by the Greens would result in a remarkable decrease of expenditure on the construction and maintenance of State highways and local roads. New Zealand needs to invest in infrastructure such as roading that will lift the country’s productivity and provide an economic stimulus. Such a reduction would also result in no new roading projects going ahead, such as the Kōpū Bridge. Importantly, it would also severely restrict the New Zealand Transport Agency’s ability to progress safety enhancements on our roads. The result would be that local authorities would have to increase rates or cancel other projects in order to continue local road maintenance, or face roads falling into disrepair.

During the current global recession, this bill would result in our goods not being able to reach market or people not being able to reach their workplaces. Since the bill’s drafting, the concept of a Government policy statement has been introduced. It directs how the amount of Government spending is divided across the various transport categories. We are replacing Labour’s expensive and inefficient regional fuel taxes with smaller, nationwide increases in excise tax that will go towards transport projects around the country. We are investing in rail and jobs for New Zealanders with $39.2 million to upgrade passenger carriages for Tranz Scenic routes, and that work is being done at the Hillside railway workshops in Dunedin. Another $75 million is being spent on 20 locomotives being built in China. A major upgrade of the Auckland rail network includes double tracking and electrification involving $1.6 billion, while we are providing more than $258 million for the Wellington commuter network. The Minister of Transport, Steven Joyce, is looking at whether a public-private partnership could be used to fund the purchase of new rolling stock required for the electrification of Auckland’s rail network. This Government is serious about getting our country moving. Thank you.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) : When I travel the roads down south, it would be rare to see one of those energy-efficient, space-saving wonders like the Honda Jazz or a Toyota hybrid. That is not to say that the constituents of Te Tai Tonga would not support cars that are fuel efficient and environmentally friendly; it is just the reality that smarter cars cost more. The writing is on the wall that vulnerable communities will become even more threatened as oil gets more expensive. The current prediction from the New Zealand Energy Strategy is that by 2020 only 5 percent of new car sales will be electric. That is, after all, only a decade away. As the technology advances, it is likely that the numbers of new car sales that will be electric will rise rapidly to 60 percent by 2040. But members can bet their last dollar that it will not be our whānau driving away in these flash vehicles, no matter how much we believe in energy efficiency.

We had a good look at this bill to see whether there were any options the Māori Party could support in the pathway to sustainable transport. The proposition in this bill is to increase the amount of investment from the National Land Transport Fund to be spent on sustainable transport options rather than on roading. I want to be clear that the Māori Party is very supportive of the development of public transport options to respond to the dual challenges of peak oil and climate change. In the medium to long term, public transport will benefit lower-income earners by providing affordable transport as petrol costs continue to increase. But we have to be real about these options. There are not a lot of commuter trains between Murupara and Whakatāne, between Ahipara and Kaitāia, or between Hokitika and the Haast. In fact, it is a bit of a push to find a good bus service in the electorates that we in the Māori Party serve. The energy-efficient trams and underground trains in Ontario are a long way from our situation here.

Aotearoa is characterised by having a high level of car ownership; a high proportion of used imported vehicles; a trend towards importing older, larger vehicles; low use of public transport; and a limited rail network. This transport profile is not sustainable. With peak oil upon us, there is an urgent need to prepare for ongoing oil price increases and a future downturn in availability, by providing people with affordable alternatives to private motorcars. Our policy has always been that we will support improved public transport in order to reduce carbon emissions and reduce the nation’s dependency on oil in the face of peak oil production. Transport emissions currently represent around half of the emissions from the energy sector, and are growing at an unsustainable rate. Bold action is required.

This bill falls into that long-term plan for transport spending to focus on sustainable and affordable alternatives. The bill also requires the Minister of Transport to report annually on the performance of the Act, including its operation in relation to the goal of a safe, integrated, responsive, and sustainable land transport system. This is an important goal: to be able to measure progress as it occurs. Simply by making the commitment that the Minister of Transport will monitor, review, and report annually on the state of land transport in New Zealand, we have made an important first step to improving the operations of our public transport system. We need to develop strategies to invest in a public transport system that is frequent, reliable, and inexpensive for users. Ideally, we must be able to investigate the purchase of fuel-efficient vehicles to lease or sell to low-income earners at prices they can afford.

A final point in favour of this bill is that we are aware that the labour intensity of public transport is higher than for roading, so we reiterate the vital need to consider ways in which Māori employment strategies can be introduced in association with any investment in new infrastructure. We end with the final word in the letter from the member sponsoring this bill: the outcome is what is important. We need to become energy literate to properly evaluate energy options. We need to lessen our dependence on imported oil, and in doing that we need to invest in sustainable transport options, services, infrastructure, and education. There is a lot to be done, so we had better start now. We therefore declare our support for this bill.

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

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) : It is my privilege to support the adoption of the Climate Change (Transport Funding) Bill, initiated by my colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons. The principal aim of this bill is to alter the funding priorities of the National Land Transport Fund away from private transport and on to public transport. The transport programme of this new and, perhaps mercifully, interim Government allocates a disproportionate amount of public funding to modes of transport that, palpably, are not sustainable. This is in an era when even the National Party acknowledges that sustainability is the imperative of our time. The Government’s programme equates to six times more funding for maintaining and growing the road network than for all the alternatives combined.

Our legislation would require that the National Land Transport Fund be spent mainly on travel demand management and also on infrastructure and services that support modes of transport other than the increasingly ubiquitous, yet increasingly troubled, private motor vehicle. It would require in its first year that 20 percent of the fund be spent on public transport operations and infrastructure, on facilitating walking and cycling, on rail freight and rail infrastructure, on coastal shipping, and on education and information pertaining to travel demand management.

It was pleasing to see the Labour Party and the Māori Party extend support to this bill in its first reading, as this will allow for submissions. It will be interesting to discover, in due course, what level of public support the bill will receive, not least in terms of demand management, for the main component of the Government’s concern with the bill appears to be that issue: the matter of what the public wants in its transport infrastructure. Well, let us find out. The challenge is there for the Government to discover what the public really want for their national infrastructure.

The Government’s policy, at least as articulated by David Bennett, rests on a descent into circular reasoning with such simplistic force that the Government is unable to reason its way back up for air. Mr Bennett derided the public’s concern about climate change and peak oil. He rested his opposition to the bill on the grounds that transport in the future would comprise electric vehicles and that we would therefore need more roads. In the Government’s brave new world, the public will not need much public transport. It took Mr Bennett most of his 10-minute speech to get this logical lock-in across. It took 10 minutes of circular reasoning because of his inability to step out of the Yezidi circle he had inadvertently created for himself.

Hon Member: The what?

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: Yezidi—it is found in Central Asia.

Let us analyse in the logical light of a new day the points made by Mr Bennett. Point 1: we shall not be driving electric vehicles any time soon. They are simply too expensive. Point 2: electric cars remain just that—electric cars. Our bill addresses the problem of traffic congestion and supports having a sustainable urban forum. Point 3: unanswered questions still surround the technologies for batteries. Point 4: unanswered questions still surround the issue of electricity supply. Even people who drive electric vehicles today are drawing down on a grid that depends on fossil fuels. Mr Bennett made a second point that went beyond his reverence for electric cars. It was that public transport requires some minimum population density to be commercially viable, and that that has some mysterious implications for New Zealand because we are a population of only 4 million. He nostalgically cited his visit to Mexico City, which comprises 30 million people. He is simply incorrect. The International Association of Public Transport says that every city, of any size, requires an increase in public transport of somewhere around 30 percent in order for sustainable living to be attained.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) : I speak in opposition to the Climate Change (Transport Funding) Bill. The purpose of this bill is to alter the funding priorities of the National Land Transport Fund over a period of time so that, within 5 years, funds will be allocated mainly to the support of modes of transport other than private vehicles. This bill has come from the Green Party. It is typical of what comes from that party. It goes in the exactly opposite direction from where this country needs to go if it is to develop and grow. The Greens seek to take this country in the opposite direction from where it needs to go. [Interruption] I tell those members opposite who are having their say that it would be wise to reflect on a couple of facts. Fewer than 6 percent of New Zealanders use public transport on a regular basis. Nearly 70 percent of all freight moved in New Zealand goes by road. Eighty-four percent of people who travel to work go by car, truck, or motorbike. Those parties that support this bill are defying fact and logic by doing so.

New Zealand needs good roads for use by private vehicles if it is to compete and grow. Changes on the scale proposed by the Green Party would do a number of things. Firstly, they would result in a huge decrease in expenditure on the construction and maintenance of State highways and local roads. Secondly, they would occur at a time when New Zealand must invest in infrastructure. We have just had 9 long years of neglect, and this Government finds itself not only in catch-up mode but also required to move New Zealand forward. If we are to lift our country’s productivity and stimulate the economy, we must engage in this sort of development. National, as the party in Government, cannot, unlike the Greens and the other parties that are supporting them, stick its head in the ground, stick to an ideology that is irrelevant to the future development of New Zealand, and pretend that our current situation does not matter. Feel-good politics such as are shown in this bill are a luxury that parties not in Government have. They are certainly not a luxury that the parties in Government can tolerate.

I invite this House to think about what this legislation would actually mean. It would mean, firstly, a reduction in spending on roads to such an extent that no new roading projects would go ahead. I invite the Green Party and the other parties that are supporting it to think about the major announcements that have been made about projects to be developed in the immediate future. Secondly, this bill will severely restrict the ability of the New Zealand Transport Agency to progress safety enhancements on our roads. Thirdly, local authorities will be faced with a choice: either increase rates or cut out other projects in order to continue with local road maintenance and development. Fourthly, at a time of economic crisis—and we live in such a time—the passage of this bill would result in goods not being able to reach their markets and people not being able to get work. This bill makes no sense at all.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) : I rise in support of the Climate Change (Transport Funding) Bill and its referral to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. This bill put forward by Green MP Jeanette Fitzsimons focuses attention on important issues of transport that are crucial to our people and our economy. We need to look not only at the implications of moving people and freight but also at the implications that transport has for economic and social development. We also need to look at the implications for quality of life in our cities, and the implications of transport for our environment. This bill specifically seeks to ensure that a greater proportion of the National Land Transport Fund is spent on transport modes other than the private motor vehicle. It also aims to identify the responsibility of the Minister of Transport in ensuring that transport decisions meet the principles of the Land Transport Management Act. Objectives include safety, sustainability, integration, and responsiveness to local needs. It is important that the Minister undertakes those responsibilities.

The previous Labour Government understood the importance of balance in the area of transport. We recognised the importance of roads, and we put in place significant funding after a period of extremely limited funding by the previous National Government. We should compare the efforts of the current National Government with the previous Labour one. National talks about $10.7 billion over 10 years being invested in State highways, whereas in Budget 2006 Labour announced a 5-year, $13.4 billion spending project in New Zealand’s largest ever roading programme. Labour, however, recognised the importance of a motimodal—

Paul Quinn: Multimodal.

CAROL BEAUMONT:—multimodal programme of transport, involving roads, public transport, sea freight, and rail, I say to Mr Quinn. That programme involved roads, public transport, sea freight, and rail. This approach is fundamental. The extra funding going into roads to reduce congestion and improve safety over time is effective only if we also find alternatives. To do otherwise means that inevitably those roads reach capacity and we are back to where we started. This is a model that we can see in Auckland time and again. In fact, Auckland is often used as a case study of worst practice in transport management. Significant road building alongside comprehensive plans for public transport was what Labour had in place for Auckland.

But recently, that comprehensive plan for public transport was put at risk by the National Government. Subsequently, a number of announcements were made seeking to reassure Aucklanders, but those announcements were incomplete and potentially pushed the burden back on to Auckland ratepayers. I ask members to also consider the issues of funding for public transport over the next 3 years. The Government is looking to reduce public transport services by $85 million. It is also looking to reduce public transport infrastructure by $250 million, and walking and cycling facilities by $15 million. These will mainly affect people in Auckland. So much for the Government’s super-city plan! How can it grow without effective transport?

The Minister of Transport does not seem to get it. He continues to refer to the figure of 85 percent of Aucklanders using motor vehicles to get to work each day as the justification for greater emphasis on spending on roads. He fails to understand that if there is not a viable alternative of affordable, accessible, regular, reliable transport going to the right places, then people have no choice but to continue to use motor vehicles. We have one of the highest rates of car ownership in the world, and that will not change until we have real choice. People are willing to use public transport—and they will—as any of us who have lived in cities with decent public transport will know. I back up Kennedy Graham by saying that, clearly, there are different options based on scale, size, and density of population. But public transport does not just work in large cities—look at Wellington. In Auckland we know that people want better public transport. Whenever public transport improvements have been made, such as the Northern Busway, the use of public transport rises sharply.

Many important issues have been raised in this bill, and I look forward to it being referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, where we can put further effort into discussing these issues.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) : It is a pleasure to celebrate Green Day, where every bill on the Order Paper today is a Green Party member’s bill. I am proud of that. I thank the Māori Party for its support, and I thank the Labour Party for its support for the Climate Change (Transport Funding) Bill. Last year I spoke to the then Labour Minister of Transport, the Hon Annette King, and we agreed that on the basis of this bill we would negotiate funding ratios and the financial assistance rate available for various kinds of projects, to try to level the playing field somewhat, which has been tilted very strongly in the direction of motorways for many, many years. Unfortunately, that is no longer possible.

This bill provides choice for New Zealanders in how they travel. I am really disappointed that this Government is opposed to giving New Zealanders that choice. The Government says that because 85 percent of New Zealanders go to work by car, we have to spend all the money on roads. Those 85 percent go by car because they have no choice. When we provide choice, people use public transport. Figures in the New Zealand Herald earlier this year showed that over the last year, patronage on public transport in Auckland grew by 3.9 million trips. That is a growth rate of 10 percent in 1 year. Use of the Northern Express busway was up 77.5 percent, because public transport was provided and people used it. The rail system was improved, and its use grew by 14.7 percent in 1 year. The growth in the use of public transport has been phenomenal wherever investment has been provided in it.

But the Government is stuck in the past. It does not recognise climate change as a serious issue, and it does not recognise peak oil as a serious issue. It puts its faith in the idea that technology will provide. This technology is supposed to be electric cars. First of all, electric cars, which are much touted by members of the Government, will look after a very small proportion of the elite. Electric cars will be very expensive, so their penetration of the market will be small. The Ministry of Economic Development—which obviously the Government does not take any notice of—says the penetration of electric cars into the New Zealand market will be 5 percent by 2020. The International Energy Agency says there will be a major oil crunch by at least 2015. What are the other people going to do? The other 95 percent of people will need to have more efficient cars, but the Government does not want to address that. They will need public transport, but the Government does not want to address that, either.

The member Allan Peachey said that roads will stimulate the economy. Well, roads are about the least job-intensive way to spend a dollar. In fact, if we shifted funding out of motorways and into public transport services, we would create 40 percent more jobs for the same money. I ask members whether that is something the Government is not interested in doing. The previous Government created the biggest road-building bonanza ever in New Zealand’s history. We have had years and years of building roads, but not of rail or public transport. Towards the end of its term, the Labour Government started to put more funding into public transport, and that was good. Now we are back in the dark ages. It is time to level the playing field. It is time to recognise that no society anywhere in the world has motorway-ed its way out of congestion; only providing the alternatives will do that.

I urge the Government to reconsider its position on this bill, and to give us a way forward in the days of climate change and peak oil.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) : I move, That the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Health Committee. The bill establishes a compassionate regime for doctors to prescribe cannabis to those of their patients they believe would benefit from it.

The bill takes the politics out of this critical health issue. Cannabis is medically proven to help manage pain, with fewer side effects than those of other medications. The provisions in the bill would carefully control the medicinal use of cannabis so that it is prescribed only for those who really need it. I ask MPs today to at least send the bill to the select committee. There will be a conscience vote on the bill tonight, and I sincerely hope that MPs will have the courage—and I accept that some will be nervous about the issue—to take a compassionate approach this evening.

The use of cannabis as a medicine is well documented in research from the UK, Israel, Germany, Canada, and the USA. The American Medical Association, the Institute of Medicine in the US, the Federation of American Scientists, the World Health Organization, and the Royal College of Physicians in the UK all support medicinal cannabis. In New Zealand the New Zealand Medical Association supports research into the benefits of cannabis for medicinal use, and the Pharmacy Guild of New Zealand told the 2001 cannabis inquiry that it considers it perfectly possible to distribute medicinal cannabis if it were to be legal to do so.

For patients, ill New Zealanders, those suffering from terminal illnesses, and those suffering severe pain from the effects of chemotherapy and other treatments that cause such distress, the issue of the medicinal use of cannabis is not to do with research; it is about relieving their daily painful suffering. Under the provisions of the bill, a patient can apply for a Medicinal Cannabis Identification Card when he or she suffers from a listed condition, and have the written support of his or her medical practitioner. The cardholder may cultivate and possess an amount of cannabis as agreed by the doctor of the cardholder. The Medicinal Cannabis Registration Board will keep and maintain a register of the cardholder’s details, and the cardholder will be registered with the police. It is a process or scheme that very closely resembles the Canadian system for the management of medicinal cannabis.

I have had many people come to see me, write letters to me, or send emails to me who plead for relief. Many are already using cannabis for pain relief, nausea management, or pain management of amputations. They are genuinely ill New Zealanders who are at their wits’ end and are treated by this Parliament and by the bureaucracy with contempt. They are entitled to the compassionate protection of the law. They are entitled to the medicine that works best for them. But all of those who have contacted me live in real fear both of thieves and of the law.

Many of their fears of the law are real fears. Sick and vulnerable New Zealanders are jailed for their medical use of cannabis. I will list some cases for members’ benefit. In 1999 a tetraplegic was jailed for 12 days for possession and cultivation of six small seedlings. His treatment in prison was despicable, including not being toileted for days. In 2003 a paraplegic man who used cannabis to control painful muscle spasms was sentenced to 150 hours of community service after police found two small seedlings in his home. The judge told the man he would face prison if he was found with cannabis again. In 2004 an amputee confined to a wheelchair for 30 years received a second jail sentence for medical use and possession of cannabis, and again was told by the judge that his jail time would get longer should he be caught again. He was badly assaulted while in prison.

Other patients report having their homes invaded and being robbed regularly by those who know they grow cannabis for medical use and know they are unable to fight back because of their illness. Those New Zealanders cannot turn to the police for assistance, and they continue to suffer in fear of reprisals and imprisonment—all because they have found a medication that will relieve their chronic pain. They need to use it because the alternatives are much worse. Indeed, the Ministry of Health recently reported to the Health Committee that cannabis has a wider safety margin, with fewer short-term side effects, than analgesics currently prescribed for chronic pain and disease; that medicinal cannabis appears effective and safe in all age groups; that the risks of a fatal overdose are very small, with no deaths reported in the medical literature; that the long-term effects of cannabis use are minor compared with the long-term use of benzodiazepines or opiates; and that cannabis can be a real alternative to those patients who need it.

New Zealanders should have the opportunity to present their views to Parliament. The people who are like the people in the examples I described earlier should be able to tell their stories to MPs. Those opposed to the bill should be able to present their concerns. I ask MPs simply to allow the bill to proceed to select committee so that the public, doctors, parents, patients, and families can have their say.

I have heard a number of concerns about the bill. A doctors’ survey carried out in 2003 about medicinal cannabis showed that lung damage from smoking it was a real concern of doctors. I will make the point first that for those New Zealanders whose conditions are terminal, who are soon to die in pain, the health risks of smoking are meaningless if the drug relieves their suffering during the remaining stages of their lives. But for all other patients—and there are others—there are many different forms of ingestion that have very few negative health effects. I have one constituent who uses a tea, because if he consumes his cannabis in any other way it is too strong and he cannot cope with it. Others use various forms such as tinctures, and massage oils can be rubbed into damaged muscles and into amputated stumps in order to relieve pain. With good information doctors are able to work through the various options for use that work best for the patient. In terminal cases, surely compassion has to be the dominant concern.

Patients do not want the euphoric effects of medicinal cannabis; they simply want to be free of the perpetual pain that confines their lives. They just want to be able to do the normal things that other people do. Doctors are the experts on medications, not members of Parliament. According to our doctors’ survey, 6 percent said they had recommended that their patients try cannabis, 10 percent said they currently had patients they believed would benefit from it, and 32 percent said they would prescribe it if it were legal to do so. Why anyone would prevent patients who suffer from chronic pain from disease from accessing an effective medicine with few side effects is beyond me. In fact, I consider it an act of cruelty for this Parliament to deny ill New Zealanders the best medication for them as prescribed by their doctors.

In asking only that this bill be allowed to proceed to the select committee, I finally note that if the bill were enacted, New Zealand would not be a world leader or a trailblazer. In fact, it would be following the example of 13 states in the US, and Canada, Spain, the Netherlands, and other countries that have a process for the provision of medicinal cannabis and whole-plant material. A number of members have expressed other concerns about the bill, but I assure every member of this House that we are open to all views, considerations, and amendments to the bill. That is what we expect to be the outcome of the select committee process, and we would welcome those contributions.

The medicinal use of cannabis is gathering increasing support and recognition around the world in communities just like those in New Zealand and in families just like those in New Zealand. Patients just like those in New Zealand are using medicinal cannabis in a way that is controlled and managed by their doctors and by the bureaucracy and ministries of health because it is the best possible medication for those people. Communities just like ours are choosing patients over politics, and compassion over cruelty. I ask that the MPs of this Parliament choose likewise. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) : Well, that was a very well-thought-out contribution from the Green member Metiria Turei. I see that the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill has been on the Order Paper for the past 3 years. Indeed, I am sure that the Green Party is very excited to hear it being debated in the House today, but I wonder whether we are really having the debate that Green members want to have. I question whether their concern is really about the medicinal applications of cannabis or more about trying to bring cannabis into the mainstream as an accepted part of New Zealand society. I have to state up front that in this conscience vote I will oppose this bill for a variety of reasons. But I find it interesting that Green members want to promote this issue very specifically in this debate.

I have the greatest sympathy for those living in chronic pain. There is no question that when we look through new schedule 4, inserted into the Act by clause 13, we see that many people with a variety of syndromes really are in need of good medical care, and they demand the sort of analgesia, or pain relief, that will give them very real relief. But I do not believe that the correct path for those people would be to give them access to unprocessed cannabis, as this bill would allow.

It is true that when the active ingredient of cannabis, THC, is extracted, it certainly has analgesic properties, and there are various preparations of that. A drug called Sativex is available through the Ministry of Health, with ministerial approval, and has that pain-killing or analgesic effect. But to propose through this bill to allow people who are debilitated by pain from various syndromes to have access to unprocessed cannabis, I think, is quite a misguided approach to the issue. I accept that the member Ms Turei has the best of intentions, but I cannot help feeling that there may be a wider, underlying Green Party agenda here.

Be that as it may, it has been stated that this bill aims to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to enable cannabis to be used for medicinal purposes. The bill allows people to be registered as users of cannabis for medicinal purposes. It also allows registered users or a designated agent to cultivate and possess a small amount of cannabis for the registered user—and I will elaborate on that a little bit later.

The range of conditions specified in the new schedule 4 is quite an impressive array. It ranges from the chronic effects of end-stage HIV infection, through to migraine, multiple sclerosis, and nausea associated with cancer chemotherapy—all of which are very important and debilitating syndromes, indeed. But we can also see some other conditions being proposed that cannabis be approved for. There is asthma; quite frankly, smoking cannabis for asthma is not the right treatment. I do not know how that ever ended up in this schedule. Cannabis would be the last thing we would want an asthmatic to have access to. Depression and mental illness are also listed. The use of cannabis for the treatment of depression and mental illness, as I think most health professionals would tell us, is completely contraindicated. In respect of many clinical patients suffering from depression and mental illness, psychiatrists and mental health nurses would be in general agreement that cannabis use makes those conditions worse.

Metiria Turei: Do you disagree with the UK medicinal cannabis research foundation, Mr Coleman?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It does make it worse. Schizophrenia is on the list. That is a psychotic illness. For people who have dealt with patients suffering from serious psychotic illness there is no question that access to cannabis is often a co-factor in the development of that illness—in the way it plays out—and is completely contraindicated for people with that sort of affliction.

There is clearly some looseness about this bill, and maybe it needs more thought as to what the possible uses of medicinal cannabis may be.

But I think there are other issues with this bill, too. I could not help but be struck by the notion that the police would be expected to distribute cannabis seeds to holders of Medicinal Cannabis Identification Cards. Really, I am not trying to be flippant about this, but the police have enough to do. The bill also proposes that cannabis seeds seized in drug raids—in raids on people who have been growing marijuana—are then redistributed to people who have a use for medicinal cannabis. I do not think the police will think that that is a particularly good idea, and I certainly do not think the public will want to see public resources used for that purpose.

There is also the issue of who will be the agent for, or the cultivator of, the cannabis. Will there be an agent who is allowed to cultivate cannabis en masse for a number of people with afflictions that need treatment? I mean, it sounds to me like a pretty impractical regime. The member talked before about the problem whereby people growing cannabis at home find they are targeted by people who want to break into the house, steal the cannabis, and sell it or smoke it. I do not see how making cannabis use legal will deter people from being targeted by those who want to get hold of their dope. So I think there are some fundamental flaws here.

The member said there is no problem with long-term marijuana smoking; I think that is a commonly mis-held belief in society. When we look at the research, we find that marijuana smoking is 10 times worse in terms of lung cancer risk than cigarette smoking is. It is actually a factor in depressive illness. I think many members here have known of people who have used marijuana over the long term, and have seen the effects on some of those individuals in terms of a lack of ability to get on with their lives. I am not saying that everyone who smokes marijuana has been afflicted like that, but we cannot make out that marijuana use and smoking are good things. There is no question about that. I think we have to be quite clear that we need fewer drugs in society, and by passing this bill we would be sending a signal that marijuana smoking is OK.

Hone Harawira: Get rid of alcohol and cigarettes, then.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Look, alcohol is a major problem in society as well, but we are talking here about cannabis; we are not talking about medicinal alcohol. This is the medicinal—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: She said smoking for terminal illness—be fair.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, if we are talking about terminal illness, then I invite the member to look at the new schedule 4. We see a lot of stuff there that does not relate to terminal illness.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Yes, I know, but you’re referring to smoking; she only referred to smoking for terminal illness.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, this is what the bill says. This is one of the problems with this bill, though: it is extremely loose. Members have to admit that. There are holes right through this bill. The member cannot bring this bill to the House and expect that it will get widespread support. I can tell members that if they took this bill outside the House, they would find that it is not the sort of legislation the public want this Parliament to be focusing on.

The member talked about the survey of 500 doctors and their attitudes to prescribing medicinal cannabis. It should be noted that 70 percent of those doctors did not want to have anything to do with it. I can see the problems doctors will be faced with. People will go to their doctor and say: “Doctor, I’ve got terrible pain. There’s nothing that can be done for it. Will you please prescribe me medicinal cannabis?”. I can tell members that the demand will be overwhelming for this stuff. Every chronic patient who will claim to have tried everything will want medicinal cannabis. But it is not the way ahead; the way ahead is through reasoned research to extract the active ingredient THC and to put it in a form of medication that can be titrated against the pain level. To say that a dose of THC can be administered in a metered spray or oral form, that someone’s level of pain is appropriate to justify medicinal cannabis, and that we can titrate that against that pain—that is the sensible way to go. But to give someone a licence to cultivate cannabis, and to have it in its unprocessed form for his or her own personal use, is not appropriate for the medical conditions described in the bill, and it is not the way ahead.

Metiria Turei: Will you subsidise Sativex?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The member cited a range of research. She will note that I did not interject on her speech; I actually listened to her arguments. We happen to have a different point of view. My view is quite firmly that I will not be voting for this bill. It will be interesting to see what the final vote count is.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : I too rise to speak on the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I am sorry. I meant to inform members that we are now on to 5-minute calls, with a 1-minute bell.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I am very keen to explain why I intend not to support this bill, and, in doing so, I want to congratulate the member Metiria Turei whose name the bill is in on bringing the matter before the House, and to say that I totally support the underlying intention of the bill. If the bill had done all that the member said in her address it would do, I would support it 100 percent.

The reason I do not want the bill to go to a select committee is that the Law Commission is holding a review on the Misuse of Drugs Act at the moment. That is not a reason in itself for legislation not to proceed. If the bill was in a different form, I would support it. The bill will require people who agree with the underlying principle, as I do, to make extensive submissions on a bill that needs to be entirely rewritten, for a number of reasons that the Minister of Immigration spelt out. It is simply not fair on those who are represented on both sides of the wider drug debate that that occur. There will be people putting their effort into the Law Commission review, and that is certainly where I think the effort should occur, although I would be very happy to assist and to work with other members in the House, including the member who has proposed the bill, to come up with a form of bill—if this bill does not make it to the select committee this time—that addresses the issue that has been raised.

The reason I do not agree with this particular bill is that it introduces a complex regulatory framework, with a Medicinal Cannabis Registration Board being established to issue the Medicinal Cannabis Identification Card and the Designated Agent Identification Card. I have printed a copy of the Sativex document, “Requirements for Physician Application-Approval”. Doctors have to apply for it. It has to be signed off by the Minister of Health. As I understand it, five people only have had applications approved under this particular method. I think we can improve upon this, and I personally think that, on a general practitioner’s prescription, we should be able to have access to this kind of medication, which does as others have already commented.

In this bill the designated agent is required to prove himself or herself to be of good moral character. I totally object to that phrase being included in any law, let alone this law. We have taken the phrase “good moral character” out of a lot of laws over time, and I do not agree with it being inserted in this one. The requirement on the police, as the Minister of Immigration has said, to supply cannabis seeds to cardholders or their designated agents—seeds that they can supply only from stock seized during law enforcement activities—creates issues of concern.

Finally, the inclusion in new schedule 4, inserted into the Act by clause 13, in the schedule of conditions that are specifically contraindicated for cannabis use and, of course, mental illness is a potential exclusion criterion for the use of cannabis medicine in table II of the form that I have referred to. It states: “increasing evidence suggests that excessive or chronic use of cannabis is linked to psychosis and that it may exacerbate the symptoms of schizophrenia or precipitate this condition.” I personally think that if we looked at table I of this form, which details inclusion criteria, we would find the sorts of conditions that ought to be covered. To be honest, in the nearly 19 years that I have been in Parliament, I have never received a single letter from a constituent asking that cannabis not be made available to a constituent suffering from a chronic or terminal illness. The specific chronic disease states or terminal illnesses spelt out in the inclusion criteria include nausea, anorexia, and wasting associated with cancer and AIDS; chronic pain for which other pain relief is ineffective; neuropathic pain associated with a variety of conditions; and muscle spasms etc. associated with MS or spinal cord injury. Those are the sorts of changes that I would like to see brought before this House. If that were to occur, I would support the bill.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) : Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill. In many respects Metiria Turei may be applauded for representing her constituency, but I do have many concerns about this bill. There are many tens of thousands of medical practitioners, nurses, and caregivers around the world who are extremely concerned about alleviating pain and the best ways to do that. It is important to point out that successive parliaments have spent considerable time on cannabis use, and medicinal cannabis use. For instance, in 2002-03 the Health Committee, and the Hon Steve Chadwick was chairman at the time, had an extensive inquiry into public health strategies related to cannabis use and their most appropriate legal status. More recently, the Health Committee has responded to a petition of Chris Fowlie, who requested that Parliament give urgent consideration to changing the law to allow individuals to obtain, possess, and use cannabis for the treatment of serious medical conditions when this has been endorsed by their registered medical practitioner.

I think it is important to reiterate the conclusions of the select committee, which were that we do not support changing the law to allow individuals to use the natural cannabis plant to treat specific and serious conditions when traditional methods have failed. We note that there is pharmaceutically based THC derivative medicine available by application to a general practitioner. Concern was expressed that this cost up to $15 a day, and that should be looked at. There were also two further recommendations: that the Government instruct the Ministry of Health to update the prescribing guidelines for pharmaceutically based THC derivative medicines to include Sativex as a medicine under the Medicines Act 1981 and to continue to make pharmaceutically based THC derivative medicines available to treat serious medical conditions when traditional methods have failed.

But I am concerned at the explanatory note in Metiria Turei’s bill. I believe it is not solid or evidence-based. She says that scientific research is now verifying anecdotal evidence that cannabis is a safe and effective medicine. That is not good enough. I absolutely agree with the Hon Jonathan Coleman’s comments about new schedule 4, in clause 13 of the bill. When we turn to schedule 4 we read that asthma, and pain, perhaps of any sort, would be included in the regime within this bill. Undoubtedly smoking cannabis is certainly absolutely inappropriate for someone with asthma. I had a prominent Wellington physician tonight point out how conditions like nail-patella syndrome are absolutely rare and there are many other options to treat it with. When one looks at new section 9B, “Medicinal Cannabis Identification Cards”, in clause 10, and the requirement in 9B(1)(b) to have “the written support of his or her medical practitioner or medical specialist;” one must recall just recently the striking off of the medical register of Dr Rhys Cullen, who abused his privilege. There is room for abuse in this bill by inappropriate prescriptions, and I agree that the provision in section 12, “Supply of cannabis seeds” by the police, will also be particularly cumbersome.

When one goes through the literature, one sees in TheLancet in July 2004, in the European Journal of Cancer more recently, and in the Journal of Pain in 2008, some of the most prestigious writers on this subject in the world. I quote from a randomised placebo-controlled crossover trial of cannabis cigarettes in neuropathic pain. The conclusion of those doing the trial was that no sound scientific studies supported the medicinal use of cannabis. They pointed out that over 111 compounds were identifiable in smoked cannabis, including several potentially harmful hydrocarbons. However, they saw the sense of carrying out similar trials in the future using vapourised, deliverable therapeutic doses. It is very important that we keep searching for evidence-based ways to alleviate pain, but I do not believe that this bill is a suitable instrument with which to do it.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) : I begin my contribution to this debate by saying that the Green Party has had an extraordinarily high amount of good luck with members’ bills lately. I do not know what it is those members are doing, but if they could spread it around just a little it would be greatly appreciated.

I want to acknowledge Metiria as the member in charge of this bill. I think it can be really difficult when one has inherited a bill, particularly after such a long period of time. This bill has been hanging around for ages. As Dr Hutchison just alluded to, there have been debates at the Health Committee on two occasions on the issue of pharmaceutically based cannabis, and this bill has stayed to the side of those.

The Health Committee inquiry 5 years ago was quite rigorous, and I hope that my colleague the Hon Steve Chadwick is able to take a call. She chaired that committee, and I know that within our caucus we certainly had a lot of very useful and intelligent debate on the issue. As Dr Hutchison noted also, our select committee has just referred back to the House a petition that did not go as far as this bill has intended but certainly recommended changes to the current regime.

A lot of people do not realise what the current position is in relation to the regime around the medicinal use of cannabis in New Zealand. Sativex is available on prescription from a general practitioner and when endorsed by a specialist. The Health Committee recommended that the threshold for accessing Sativex be reduced. It is horrifically expensive. If people have been ill for quite some time, they are unlikely to be in paid work—even part-time work, let alone full-time work—so their finances are depleted. They already carry the huge burden of illness and pain, and on top of that we charge them like a wounded bull.

Our select committee felt unanimously that that was unfair and meant that the only pain relief or the only relief from nausea for many people was just not available. It is financially inaccessible. We suggested that the Medicines Act be amended to include Sativex so that it could be available on prescription from a general practitioner and would not need that higher level of endorsement.

Although most people talk about the primary purpose of medicinal cannabis as being pain relief, it is also very useful in easing muscle spasms. That is a very common condition and one that is very hard to treat otherwise, and it can have a very detrimental effect on the quality of life for people. As my colleague Lianne Dalziel mentioned, it is also an appetite stimulant on some occasions for some conditions.

So in New Zealand we already have pharmaceutically produced cannabis-based medicines. This bill is saying that that regime is quite onerous and quite expensive. Sativex is expensive in terms of accessing general practitioners and specialists, and it is also expensive to access literally as a nation. Other countries have looked at this issue and said: “Well, why don’t we just have the right for people to grow their own cannabis for medicinal purposes?”, and that is really what this bill proposes.

I agree with my colleague Lianne Dalziel that if the member had the opportunity to quietly rip up the bill, start again, and submit a newly drafted bill, I am sure the member may have done it. But it is not beyond the ability of the select committee—I have seen it done on many occasions—to throw out the entire bill except for the point of it, and rewrite it in language that members of the select committee are all comfortable with and, certainly, have learnt on the basis of the submissions.

Likewise, in respect of the other point my colleague Lianne Dalziel made in regard to the Law Commission review, I do not think it would be beyond the ability of the select committee—as a member, I would certainly support it, and I think Dr Hutchison would as well—to park this bill until the Law Commission results were progressed a bit, and then, having heard what the Law Commission is doing, progress this bill. Is it way out of keeping? It may be the case that the Law Commission looks at it and we could just pick up those submissions and learn from them, or the commission may look at it rigorously and decide it is not something we should progress.

In my view, Parliament should never be afraid of a controversial debate. We should never be afraid to learn from international evidence and from what other countries are doing, even if we disagree with them. I will support the referral of this bill, with all its faults, to a select committee, because I am not afraid of the controversy around that debate.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) : I was not going to speak on the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill, and I was going to save my vote as a surprise at the end, but I have found myself unable to resist the temptation to rise to speak to it after hearing the contribution from Metiria Turei and after what has occurred over the last couple of days.

Like other members, I am sure, my BlackBerry has been buzzing since last Monday with exhortations from various people, dozens and dozens of them, about the anti-smacking bill—the child discipline bill. But I have received just as many from the thousands and thousands of amputees, cancer victims, end-stage HIV sufferers, and others who exhort me to support this bill. I find that rather amusing.

Metiria Turei managed to get through her speech—10 minutes, I think—with a completely straight face. She had this House believe that this bill is all about the medicinal use of cannabis. In dozens of other arguments since I have been here, the Greens have given us dire warnings about the thin end of the wedge, and measures that were supported by both major sides of the House found obstacles over there because they were the “thin edge of the wedge”. Not on this one, though.

Let us take Tasers as an example. Members on both sides, with various degrees of caution, see the use of Tasers as a good alternative to being shot, but the Greens see it as the police going around terrorising everyone and extracting confessions from people on the ground. But, apparently, the provisions in this bill will not go any further than cancer victims, end-stage HIV sufferers, and amputees.

Todd McClay: And people without appetites.

DAVID GARRETT: Yes, indeed.

But having said all of that, on a matter of principle I intend to support the bill, because I think that bills should always go to a select committee. Ms Dyson probably will not appreciate my support, but the arguments she made a second ago make plenty of sense. The select committee process is valid, things come out of it, and I have confidence that if the bill was to get to a select committee, the idea that cannabis is a treatment for psychiatric illness would very quickly emerge as a ludicrous one.

I have a close friend in Taranaki who is a psychiatric nurse, and she has talked to me about the young people in the psychiatric ward of Taranaki Base Hospital. She told me every single one who has acute psychosis has problems with cannabis use. In respect of asthma, well, cannabis was used for that in the 1920s. I was not around in the 1920s, but Indian hemp, as it was then called, was a recognised treatment for asthma. We now have much better things. My young boy has asthma and he has a puffer rather than a joint.

But having said all of that, I think that, on principle, as I have said, bills, especially members’ bills, should have the courtesy of being sent to select committee for examination. For that reason alone, I intend, for myself, to support the bill at this stage.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) : The Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill is essentially about allowing registered medical practitioners to prescribe cannabis to those with certain serious medical conditions such as cancer, arthritis, or Alzheimer’s disease. There would not be a Māori in Aotearoa who has not felt the force of those conditions, so one would think that we would look at this bill with considerable sympathy. Indeed, just a couple of weeks ago I lost my mother as a result of Alzheimer’s, so I know only too deeply the agonising ordeal for individuals and their whānau in enduring the impacts of these illnesses. Anything that can make our loved ones’ lives easier comes within our gaze, and we know there are some pretty compelling reports in medical journals around the world that support the medicinal properties of cannabis, especially with pain relief, anti-spasticity, and anti-nausea.

That research provides a strong basis for supporting the use of medicinal cannabis where other therapies have failed for people with very debilitating diseases and where the delivery mechanism is safe. That is where the Māori Party starts to become unstuck. Studies show the effectiveness of treatment when cannabis is applied in the form of tablets or an oral mucosal spray; it is generally well tolerated and its short-term use is safe. There are other methods: the use of tinctures, inhalers, and vaporisers can be used to manage the delivery of medicinal cannabis. But the reality is that we know that the most readily available form of cannabis would be through smoking it, and that is where the Māori Party has objections that cannot be ignored.

There is a host of evidence showing that the health effects of smoking cannabis are similar to smoking tobacco, as the inhalation of smoke from any organic material is the harmful activity. A New Zealand study conducted last year found that regular cannabis use increases the risk of lung cancer. In essence, cannabis smoke contains the same cancer-causing substances, or carcinogens, as tobacco. However, cannabis cigarettes do not have a filter, so more of the tar reaches the lungs. In addition, people inhale cannabis smoke for longer than cigarette smoke—contrary to a certain US President. Part of the attraction or the addiction, I understand, is to get the full effect of the cannabis, but that means the smoke is in contact with the lungs for longer. Therefore, there is a greater respiratory burden because cannabis smokers inhale more deeply. There are other side effects associated with smoking marijuana, not the least being the range of its adverse respiratory effects such as a chronic cough, recurrent bronchitis, and a significant impairment of lung function. Cannabis smokers are significantly more likely to experience heart complications, including heart disease and sudden cardiovascular death. In a report published just last month in the Chemical Research in Toxicology journal, research indicated that, as with tobacco smoke, cannabis smoke damages the DNA and increases the risk of lung cancer and other cancers.

We are genuinely conflicted about this bill. Of course we would not wish anyone to suffer the pain of chronic illness without having effective relief. I would have done anything for my mother, but she would never have picked up a joint. Neither would I have wanted her to, for many reasons other than pain relief; many of those reasons would have been about her mokopuna and my mokopuna. We believe that marijuana’s future as a medicine must not involve smoking it. We cannot ignore the fact that access to and legal possession of marijuana by adults for medical reasons can model exposure and access to use by children and adolescents. The issue of managing access to cannabis will always be enormously risky. The Māori Party has always believed that if we, as a nation, are truly committed to whānau ora, we must address the social hazards that create such havoc on our health such as tobacco and cannabis smoking. We fully accept that cannabis is well known as a smooth muscle relaxant, and it is useful for certain conditions and in some pain therapy, but we will never agree that smoking is an acceptable means of delivery for any medicine. On those grounds, the Māori Party cannot support this bill.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green) : It gives me great pleasure to stand today and speak in favour of Metiria Turei’s Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill. I hope that other members of the House, regardless of their views on the separate issue of decriminalisation of cannabis, will also feel able to support it.

Members may be aware that I worked for the New Zealand AIDS Foundation for 10 years, including 5 years as its executive director. During that time I became very aware that many people who are living with HIV and AIDS, possibly most, had found that cannabis was an effective medicine for them, whereas other medicines had failed. Those people used it for that purpose, often with the blessing, either explicit or tacit, of their doctor. I also have a lot of experience with people with spinal injuries, and exactly the same situation applies. Many other members of this House will also know people with chronic and debilitating conditions who have used cannabis in the same way and for the same reasons. In my AIDS Foundation role I was lobbied by people living with HIV and AIDS to do more to try to achieve access to cannabis for medicinal purposes. I very much regret that I was not able to do more to advance the issue from that role.

The principal reason given for the illegal status of cannabis generally is that it poses health risks to the user, and that point goes to those arguments made by the previous speaker, Rahui Katene. The HIV and AIDS field has seen us have the need to advance our thinking on many fronts, and one of those is in the idea of catastrophic rights. It is obvious, really, that in the case of people facing very serious consequences of their illness, such as those to whom this bill would apply, the normal rules we have to protect them from harm should be suspended. This doctrine is normally applied to allow such patients to access new drugs that are still in experimental phases and have not yet been proven to work or to have no harmful effects. But it applies even more to cannabis, where the risks are known and are known to be relatively minor.

I was in California last year and was very struck by the green pharmacies now dispensing medicinal cannabis, which I had not seen even a few years ago. That reflects a growing international consensus that cannabis should now be available as a medicine. Now it seems we also have a growing consensus in New Zealand on the benefits of cannabis for medicinal purposes. I sit on the Health Committee, as do Paul Hutchison and Ruth Dyson, who have previously spoken. We recently reported on Chris Fowlie’s petition. The Ministry of Health told the select committee that evidence supports the medicinal use of cannabis for the treatment of serious medical conditions when traditional medicines have failed, providing a broad spectrum effect. The ministry said that toxicity associated with excessive doses is unlike that for other analgesics currently prescribed for chronic pain and disease, in that it has a wider safety margin with fewer short-term side effects and minor long-term effects, compared with current drug regimens. The ministry also told us that medicinal cannabis appears effective and safe in all age groups. That is on the basis of the ministry’s literature review, not on the basis of the single study that Paul Hutchison mentioned.

The remaining question, then, given there is consensus of benefit, is how best to provide access for patients. The committee has recommended that pharmaceutically derived THC derivative Sativex is brought under the Medicines Act to allow general practitioners to prescribe it without specialist endorsement. That would be a good step forward. It also opens the door for it to be considered for subsidy by Pharmac. It would be great to hear from Government members today on how the Government will progress the select committee’s recommendation, but I have not heard that yet. The select committee also expressed concern that, as things stand, with no subsidy, costs could restrict access for some patients.

It may be that it was not appropriate for the committee to take things to the next logical step but it would be appropriate for this House to do so. If there is clear evidence of benefit and improved quality of life for seriously ill and dying patients, and it has less risk than the currently available treatments—which are also less effective, but cost is a barrier to the version produced by pharmaceutical companies—then, for goodness’ sake, let us allow those who meet the criteria to access the natural product. In the minds of members, on this issue logic will be grappling with fear. Logic says “Support the bill.” Please be brave.

NICKY WAGNER (National) : I rise to oppose the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill, but firstly I wish to congratulate Metiria Turei on getting the bill drawn from the ballot. The Greens always seem to be particularly lucky when it comes to member’s bill ballots. I know that many Green Party supporters will be keen to see this bill passed.

The legalisation of marijuana has been a long-time Green policy, and although it has not been acknowledged recently, everyone knows that the Greens would like to see marijuana made legal. I say “everyone” because time and time again when I visit schools, kids tell me that they support the Greens. When I ask why, I am told that it is not because they are interested in the environment, and it is not because they support or even really have any knowledge of the Greens’ policies. They tell me that they support the Greens so “we can smoke dope legally, Miss”, and that is the problem with this bill.

At first glance the use of cannabis by the chronically ill when they find all other medications unsuitable sounds practical and sensible, but it is not quite that simple. Ross Bell from the Drug Foundation said in the Dominion Post this morning that this bill is not a debate over the change of the legal status of marijuana and that it is not a backdoor attempt to legalise marijuana, because there will be tight controls over the dispensing of cannabis for medicinal use. Again that sounds sensible, but tight control is hard to achieve.

Most New Zealanders would like to see tight control on cannabis, full stop. We all know the dangers of the drug, particularly for young people, and it is very difficult to control. It is even harder to achieve tight control. There are dozens, maybe even hundreds, of legal drugs that can be used to treat sick people without having to legalise a highly prized, illegal, recreational drug and to provide for it to be grown for personal use. I would be more sympathetic to the situation if there was not any alternative to unprocessed cannabis for medicinal purposes, but there is. Sativex is a pharmaceutically based mouth spray that can be used by a patient when all traditional treatment options have failed.

In 2008 the Health Committee reviewed the present situation and concluded that the law should not be changed to allow the possession and use of unprocessed cannabis for medicinal purposes. The Health Committee recommended that Sativex be listed as a medicine under the Medicines Act 1981. That means that it could be prescribed by a general practitioner without any need for specialist support, and I and National support that recommendation.

The advantage of Sativex is that it is a quality-controlled product. It can be prescribed in a measured dose, and because it is a mouth spray it has no harmful side effects. It is a useful medicine for those who have trouble taking more traditional products, and I know people who are using it very successfully. It is particularly suitable for managing HIV and AIDS, and spinal injuries. It is used in the care of Alzheimer’s and for pain management. It is being used successfully, and that is a positive step.

Sativex is the only cannabis-based product available presently on the market. There are over 60 active therapeutic compounds in cannabis, and there is increasing interest from scientists in creating unique new medicines from the cannabis plant. National would support any innovation in this area. But I struggle with this bill. I feel that the medicinal path is really a red herring.

All prescription medicine of any type needs to be controlled and dispensed in a safe, reliable, and consistent manner. This bill suggests that seriously ill people should grow their own medicine. Is that really where we want our health system to go? I can imagine the outrage if we suggested that people grow their own penicillin on top of their jam. Sick people deserve better than that. I support the use of Sativex and also the development of new cannabis-based drugs.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) : I am pleased to take a call, because I think members’ days are particularly interesting days. It is great to see the number of members who have come down to the House on this issue, which has made some of them sit in their seats and squirm a little bit. I thank them for coming down and listening to the debate, because often the debate changes people’s perspective and their point of view on this issue.

As our health spokeswoman, Ruth Dyson, said, I chaired the cannabis inquiry in 2003. It was quite a different inquiry then. It was an inquiry into the public health strategies related to cannabis use and the most appropriate legal status. But we did have a recommendation back to the Government—and Labour was in Government at that time—that cannabis is among a number of substances that we should look at for medicinal use. We got a response from the Government to say that this work was under way, and we were closely watching what was happening in the UK at that time with a pharmaceutical preparation. It was great to know that, ultimately, that has come into the country and patients can be prescribed Sativex.

We have heard tonight about how complex that process is for patients and how expensive it is for them. I will definitely support this bill being referred to the Health Committee tonight. I think is it is a poorly written bill, but I know from previous bills that have been before the Health Committee that good members on the committee who are not pharmaceutical experts but politicians in the House listen to evidence that comes before the select committee and can turn around an improper and rather clumsy bill to make it so much better.

I want to point out two issues in schedule 4. People have expressed surprise at how some of these conditions are seen to benefit from medicinal cannabis and the therapeutic use of cannabis. I am the national patron for a terrible condition called Guilain-Barre syndrome, where patients are paralysed but suffer the most extensive pain that is cruel to watch. Some of those patients are paralysed but suffer dreadful pain and are unable to go on opiate derivatives because it depresses their respiratory tract, and that is of extreme danger to them. Some of those patients have mentioned that cannabis has helped them enormously to get through that terrible acute pain phase. The same applies to those with multiple sclerosis who get terrible spasms of their body and find it hard to find another pharmaceutical drug that helps them so much. It also applies to amputees who get phantom pain and after the amputation are screaming with pain in a limb that is no longer there. Pain clinics struggle to find some sort of pain relief for those people, yet we have a product that those who have used cannabis say has completely taken away those acute pain symptoms that give them no quality of life.

We are not medical experts in this House. But I did like the now sponsor of the bill, Metiria Turei, saying that as politicians we should show some compassion and that we should also look at alternatives. We have Sativex, and that is great, but we should also be doing the right thing for the public of New Zealand. I believe in the principle, as David Garrett said, of taking this to a select committee. I say to Mr Garrett that we find some strange bedfellows in some debates.

I think, as well, that this raises issues in relation to the need to review drug law and drug policy. This country is calling out for a comprehensive review of drug policy. I am glad we will receive the Law Commission report.

If we deny the public of New Zealand the opportunity to submit on a bill like this, we close down community conversations. We close down raising public awareness of an issue that in this case I do not believe is a wedge issue, as some members have said tonight, to legalise marijuana. It is nothing to do with that.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) : I thank members for their contributions this evening. I thank those who have agreed to support the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill or the principle behind the bill. We are talking about sick New Zealanders, those who suffer, and taking a compassionate approach to their needs, as opposed to a bigoted or prejudiced approach about the issue of cannabis in general.

I will address some of the issues that have been raised. It is true that cannabis issues have been debated in the House comparatively regularly, and that is because no action has been taken. Nothing has really changed. Until something changes to provide relief to those patients—frankly, the registration of Sativex in itself is not enough—we will continue to bring these issues before the House, because sick people deserve our support and compassion. The fact that Sativex might be registered in this country and available to patients does not mean that they can access it. It might mean that those who are wealthy are able to access it, but those who have been ill for some time and have had serious income issues as a result of that illness are not. People should not suffer simply because they are unable to afford the best medicine that is available to them, when there is an alternative that is cheap, accessible, and controlled and managed by a doctor in accordance with the conditions of that person’s illness. All this bill asks for is that medication that will work for a patient and is managed by a doctor be available to that patient in an accessible way.

There were concerns about the list of conditions that the legislation applies to. I understand the concerns and why they were raised. I note, though, that the list of conditions was based on the list that was provided in 2001 by the UK’s Medicinal Cannabis Research Foundation. It includes depression and mental illness, as well as the conditions listed in the bill. The inclusion of those conditions was based on evidence and research that had been conducted elsewhere. I also remind members that I have said—and will continue to say—that the Green Party and I would be open to appropriate amendments to the bill, if the bill were to go to the select committee. We could have that discussion there.

There is no doubt that cannabis is an effective medicine. The research has proved it. A 2005 British survey of 500 HIV/AIDS patients found that a third of them used cannabis for symptomatic relief, and more than 90 percent of them said that medicinal cannabis reduced their nausea, improved their appetite, and resolved their muscle pain and other symptoms. Research in 2005 found that four out of every 10 Dutch patients who had prescriptions for medicinal cannabis used it to treat multiple sclerosis or spinal cord injuries. A 2002 British survey of multiple sclerosis patients found that 43 percent used medicinal cannabis, and that 67 percent would use it if it were legal. Because they were frightened of the law, they were not able to access this medicine that would be advantageous for them.

I note the concerns of the Māori Party as to the delivery of the medicine. I reiterate that there are other forms and methods of delivery that do not involve the inhalation of hot ash and smoke—for example, the use of tinctures, which for some conditions are much more effective. There are ways of ingesting cannabis through the stomach, whether it is in a tea or in some other edible form. That method can be much more effective for some patients. The use of vaporisers and inhalers is available for whole plant material. Both those options are available.

Finally, the public support the bill. Sixty-three percent of New Zealanders polled in a TV3 survey said they supported the provision of medicinal cannabis to patients.

Our community needs our help. There are people in our community who are in serious, daily pain that prevents them from living any kind of decent life. The only thing that prevents them from having access to relief from that pain and suffering is that this Parliament will not allow the debate on the issue to be heard. So I ask MPs again: all we seek is that the bill goes to a select committee so that those patients, their families, and their doctors can talk to us and provide information, research, and evidence, which we can consider.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) : I move, That the Liquor Advertising (Television and Radio) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Health Committee. I urge all MPs to support this bill’s referral to the select committee for further discussion and debate. I also acknowledge Brendon Burns and his latest efforts to deal with the issue of the advertising of liquor.

This bill will prohibit the broadcast of all liquor advertising in New Zealand, except in films that have been made overseas—a practical measure. Alcohol advertising was introduced to broadcast media in 1991, and it has become the primary source of information for most people about alcohol and how it is used. Alcohol, through advertising, is associated with desirable lifestyle images, normalising and encouraging widespread alcohol use.

To use the Drug Foundation’s words, alcohol is New Zealand’s “most widely used psychoactive … recreational drug”. Its effects include lack of coordination, mood changes, aggression, overly emotive feelings, confusion, blurred vision, poor muscle control, nausea, vomiting, incontinence, impotence, shrinking of testicles, sperm damage and low sperm count, alcohol poisoning, coma, and death. Alcohol can be addictive, and “withdrawal effects include loss of appetite, nausea, sweating, body shakes, anxiety, insomnia, irritability and confusion. A person withdrawing from severe alcohol dependence may risk convulsions, delusions, hallucinations, vomiting and death.” The Drug Foundation reports that research has shown that “the social cost of alcohol in New Zealand ranged between $1 billion to $4 billion each year. Lost productivity cost New Zealand $1.17 billion each year; the burden on the public health sector was $655 million, crime and related costs added up to $240 million, social welfare $200 million and other alcohol-related government spending $330 million.”

Alcohol is dangerous, lethal, and expensive for this country. Yet this dangerous drug is marketed in a myriad of ways to our communities, and particularly to our young people. Sold in stores, this drug is readily available. Research here and overseas shows that a restriction or ban on the advertising of this drug is an important step towards reducing the use of and, therefore, the harm caused by this psychoactive drug.

I refer to a recent submission to the Law Commission by Professor George Seber of the University of Auckland, who described in that submission the results of a French law. In France, alcohol advertisements are prohibited on television or in cinemas. The French data show that the introduction of the law to ban broadcast advertising ensured that levels of use continued to drop in that country, and in 2007 there was a 2 percent fall in wine sales. France has also taken the courageous step of banning the alcohol industry’s sponsorship of sport—something that New Zealand has failed to do. Norway has a total ban on alcohol advertising. Twenty-one of the 27 European Union member States have a partial or complete television advertising ban with regard to time and/or product.

The science group of the European Alcohol and Health Forum has produced a report that includes 13 longitudinal studies that involved 38,000 young people aged between 10 and 21 years old. I will describe for members three extensive reviews referred to in that report.

The first was conducted in 2009 by Lesley Smith and David Foxcroft: “The data from these studies suggest that exposure to alcohol advertising in young people influences their subsequent drinking behaviour. The effect was consistent across studies, a temporal relationship between exposure and frequency of drinking … was clearly demonstrated”. Another study from 2008 stated: “Available evidence suggests that price promotions do increase binge drinking and that exposure to point of purchase advertising predicts the onset of youth drinking. Regardless of their explicit intention there is evidence for an effect of alcohol advertisements on underage drinkers.” A third survey in 2009 found: “Longitudinal studies consistently suggest that exposure to media and commercial communications on alcohol is associated with the likelihood that adolescents will start to drink alcohol, and with increased drinking amongst baseline drinkers. Based on the strength of this association, we conclude that alcohol advertising and promotion increases the likelihood that adolescents will start to use alcohol, and to drink more if they are already using alcohol.”

A further study published in The Lancet noted: “Making alcohol more expensive and less available, … are highly cost-effective strategies to reduce harm … Banning of alcohol advertising, drink-driving counter-measures, and individually directed interventions to drinkers who are already at risk are also cost-effective approaches.”

That was a long recitation of reports, and there are many more just like them. The fact is that MPs and the community know the truth of the matter. For as long as the community turns a blind eye to the harm caused by this drug and continues to refuse to take the easy and basic measures to control and manage its use, we will all continue to suffer the grotesque consequences.

Alcohol contributes to about 25 percent of fatal car crashes. Twenty-five percent of car crashes that result in a death are attributable to alcohol. Twenty percent of crashes that cause serious injury on our roads are attributable to alcohol. New Zealand research shows that nearly 4 percent of all deaths in this country are attributable to alcohol consumption. Nearly 4 percent of all deaths are attributable to the consumption of alcohol. The harm is real. The harm affects all of our families and communities. This drug must be better controlled and better managed. Our bill proposes a very small step towards controlling and managing this drug in a way that will protect our community from harm.

The Green Party believes that the three most popular drugs in New Zealand should be regulated within the law under a similar framework. To this end, it is the Green Party’s policy that public health measures should include the following aspects: first, a ban on the broadcast of alcohol advertising; secondly, a requirement for compulsory health warnings on all alcohol and tobacco products; and, thirdly, support for the use of pricing mechanisms such as taxes, duties, and levies to discourage the use of alcohol and tobacco. Tobacco kills; so does alcohol. Both should be regulated under a similar framework. This bill takes one step towards achieving that consistency. It deals with the first measure, which concerns the banning of broadcasts. The bill is reasonable, rational, and demonstrably effective. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Broadcasting) : I do not think that it will have escaped those who are listening to or watching this debate at home, or who have been following the proceedings in Parliament this evening, that there is irony in the fact that the Green members spent the past hour arguing for liberalisation around marijuana, and they now, after Metiria Turei’s speech, sound as though they are on the verge of calling for the prohibition of alcohol.

The member made a number of good points about alcohol. There is no question that abuse of alcohol in New Zealand is a very serious issue. All Governments around the Western World grapple with the issue; this Parliament grapples with it on a regular basis. A couple of years ago there was a conscience vote here on raising the drinking age back to 20 years from the level of 18 years that was set back in 1999. It is on the record that that vote was lost. But in looking at what we can actually do to address the issue of alcohol abuse in New Zealand, I do not think that the Liquor Advertising (Television and Radio) Bill, which calls for a total ban on all broadcast advertising of alcohol, will achieve that effect. The bill provides that, subject to certain exceptions, no person may broadcast, or arrange for any other person to broadcast, any liquor advertisement in New Zealand. We will have a conscience vote on the bill, and I can tell members that I will be opposing it.

This Government understands that liquor is a major issue in New Zealand. Indeed, the current Parliament has a number of bills before it in order to consider the issue in depth. This bill, however, addresses only selected aspects of liquor management, and pre-empts other similar bills currently before the House. The Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill was introduced to the House in August 2008 and had its first reading in March this year. It deals, amongst other things, with the advertising of liquor. It is before the Justice and Electoral Committee, which will report back in September this year. In addition, the Law Commission is currently undertaking a full review of the Sale of Liquor Act. It has been made clear to the Law Commission that liquor issues are something that this Government wishes to address, and we have asked the commission to produce a report 12 months earlier than the previous Government had directed.

We believe that this Parliament wants one crack at getting it right so that we do not need to repeat this conversation about liquor regulation on an annual basis. In light of that direction, the commission is expected to report back with a discussion document later this month. A full report will follow that—one that responds to this consultation process. Both the aforementioned bill and the review are more comprehensive than the current bill before the House. It is also worth pointing out that another member’s bill, the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill, was recently defeated in the House by 62 votes to 58. It is crucial that we avoid a piecemeal approach to liquor issues.

The Government is of the view that the Advertising Standards Authority currently does a sufficient job of exercising control and encouraging self-regulation over certain specified complaints relating to the broadcasting of liquor advertising. It is interesting to note that in 2008 the Advertising Standards Authority received 1,240 complaints, of which fewer than 5 percent were about alcohol, and that most of these complaints were about advertising in media other than television. The Advertising Standards Authority is currently in the public consultation phase of the development of a liquor promotion code. This code will deal with issues such as packaging and promotion, which this bill does not even touch upon.

I say again that the Justice and Electoral Committee is taking a much broader look at the whole area of legislation in this area. It would seem to make sense to see that process through to completion, rather than to develop piecemeal solutions that might be superseded by this review in the coming months.

It is also important to note that this bill would have a significant commercial impact. The television industry is facing serious economic challenges due to an ever-changing broadcasting scene and the ongoing recession. It is on the record that advertising revenue for free-to-air broadcasters has dropped considerably in recent years. It is also interesting that those who have complained the loudest about job losses at Television New Zealand (TVNZ) and problems in that sector are the very same people who would further seek to cut the revenue of free-to-air broadcasters by supporting measures such as this bill and the Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill that was before the House 2 weeks ago. I tell members that the livelihood of free-to-air broadcasters will depend on their ability to continue to advertise, and to self-regulate their advertising in a responsible manner. Indeed, if this bill is successful, the advertising industry estimates that upwards of $16 million per year in television advertising revenues will be lost. This in turn will lead to further job losses in the industry and lower investment in local programming content. Members opposite cannot have it both ways. They cannot say they do not want freedom of advertising on television, but at the same time get upset when there are job losses in the television industry, where there is damage to that industry on a long-term basis.

I will certainly be interested to hear what some of the Labour Party speakers have to say about this, because I know they supported Brendon Burns’ member’s bill 2 weeks ago. He was very vociferous on the issue of banning advertising on television, but at the same time he was very prominent in calling for a stemming of the job losses at TVNZ. He is in quite a difficult position, trying to reconcile supporting our State broadcaster with at the same time wanting to ban its ability to advertise as it sees fit in a responsible manner during its own schedule time.

In the last 4 years, the amount spent on alcohol advertising on television has reduced from $24 million a year to $15.8 per annum. Across all media, it has gone down from $40 million a year to $36 million a year. As a percentage of annual media spend, alcohol advertising on television has gone from 60 percent to 44 percent, while in other media it has risen, most notably in newspapers, where it is up from 16 percent to 24 percent. To impose additional constraints that have unproven benefits will not provide a public good, but will have a serious negative effect on the television industry as advertisers of alcohol move to other media, most notably the print media.

Also, it would seem that the reason for this bill’s introduction is now obsolete. Although the concerns over negative aspects of consumption of alcohol have risen, alcohol advertising is actually in long-term decline. Advertising for alcohol peaked in 1998 and has been dropping steadily ever since. This bill also completely ignores the fact that New Zealand is now in a global media market. A lot of content comes in from overseas, yet this bill allows for international liquor advertising—embedded, say, in coverage of a baseball game from the US via ESPN—but not for Steinlager to be advertised on the billboards of an All Black test match. This bill is bad for New Zealand companies. It is bad for the advertisers. It is bad for the broadcasters. It is bad for New Zealand sport events. But at the same time, it will be OK for foreign brands supporting foreign sports events and foreign broadcasters to be beamed into our television screens here in New Zealand.

Finally, alcohol advertising is currently restricted to between 8.30 p.m. and 6 a.m. The broadcasters have generally taken a responsible approach to what they broadcast in terms of liquor advertising, and when they broadcast it. Alcohol advertising already has many restrictions designed to ensure that the target audience is not youth, and the liquor industry generally acts responsibly to appeal to an adult audience.

In summary, we would say that banning liquor advertising will not really have the desired effect of reducing alcohol abuse in New Zealand; there is no evidence that it will. I also make the point that New Zealanders are starting to watch their televisions in a way that cuts out the advertising anyway. Innovations like personal video recorders and the ability for people to time-shift content mean that a lot of people now do not even watch the ads. I think this legislation is really a solution looking for a problem. A wide range of approaches are currently before Parliament. We want to get right the issue of how liquor is handled by New Zealanders. We want to approach it once, and once only; we do not want a piecemeal approach. There are more effective ways to curtail alcohol abuse than through the passing of this bill. The final point I make is that one cannot say that one is for the State broadcaster but that one supports cutting its right to advertise.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the next member, the following calls are of 5 minutes, and there will be a warning bell at 4 minutes. I call Brendon Burns.

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) : I am very pleased to speak on the Liquor Advertising (Television and Radio) Bill, and to follow in the wake of the Minister of Broadcasting’s crocodile tears for the 90 jobs lost at Television New Zealand.

If this bill related to banning the advertising of guns, would the Minister still stand up and say that Parliament should not consider it?

Hon Ruth Dyson: No principles there.

BRENDON BURNS: That is right. Obviously television advertising is a powerful medium.

I acknowledge that I have some concerns about this bill—a dilemma, in fact—because, like many New Zealanders, I have long enjoyed a drink, mostly responsibly. I also think that our current alcohol laws are an absolute mess and do not do much to manage the harm that alcohol creates in our communities on a day-by-day basis. That said, as has been noted, I hold the Labour broadcasting portfolio. Although I believe that television and radio are particularly powerful influences on our drinking culture, it cannot be seriously argued that they are wholly responsible for the harm done by alcohol and the promotion of alcohol. This bill fails to acknowledge the role of other media and other advertising. If Parliament had the courage to restrict or ban advertising on television and radio, and across other media, it would have to be done in that kind of way—in concert with other advertising. We must treat all media equitably. That said, I will support this bill going to the select committee as a vehicle to promote the message that the tide has gone too far, and that we need to comprehensively review alcohol laws.

I hope that this bill, if referred to the select committee, would only be considered alongside the wide-ranging reforms of all alcohol laws now under consideration by the Law Commission. I will quote the President of the Law Commission, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, a very fine former member for Christchurch Central, who recently, in the somewhat ironic setting of The Honest Lawyer pub in Nelson, made this comment: “Alcohol is no other ordinary commodity. It is a drug. Alcohol would be classed as a Class B drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 if it were treated on its merits … Obviously that will not happen, but the properties of alcohol are the reason why it must be closely regulated.” I think that the premise must be that the regulation of alcohol should put public health as the primary concern. It is the founding principle of the Sale of Liquor Act, but that Act, currently under review, fails to enshrine that in any sense whatsoever.

Alcohol is a very major public health concern, and a huge amount of international and local research confirms the impact that television and radio advertising has on young people. A longitudinal study in Dunedin found that males could recall seeing many alcohol adverts at age 13, and that those who could recall the adverts drank larger amounts of alcohol at age 18. The 12 to 17-year-olds who recalled most alcohol adverts were more likely to think it was OK for kids of their age to get drunk, to think that their friends drank frequently, and to drink more themselves. If members can recall the Lion Red chin head campaign of a little time ago, research shows that 97 percent of minors recalled seeing the chin heads, 71 percent knew the advertisement was for Lion Red—these are kids as young as 12 years of age—92 percent had positive views about the ads, and 64 percent thought the ads would appeal to minors.

Alcohol advertising, it has to be acknowledged, is not the only change that has happened since 20 years ago when we began allowing alcohol advertising on television and on radio, but it has certainly played its part. Obviously, we have had considerable other changes, including the reduction in the age of purchase and the increased availability of alcohol, particularly in supermarkets. But, none the less, in the 10-year period of 1990 to 1999 the amount that 14 to 17-year-olds were drinking doubled on a typical drinking occasion, which coincided with the period when alcohol advertising on radio and television was first allowed. Parliament has to acknowledge the damage and harm that alcohol causes. It is appropriate that we use every opportunity to consider those issues. This bill provides another mechanism for that. I support it going to the select committee for that sort of consideration.

PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) : I rise to speak against the Liquor Advertising (Television and Radio) Bill, a bill that was introduced by Jeanette Fitzsimons in 2006 and has been carried forward by the new co-leader of the Greens, Metiria Turei. I, along with my colleague the Hon Jonathan Coleman, also see the irony in what is being put forward in this bill, given what was debated in the previous bill, which involved the liberalisation of marijuana. I speak against this bill first and foremost because its content is already covered by other legislation and reviews that are currently going through the House.

It is a challenging issue, as the three previous speakers have already mentioned, in that, on the one hand, we see the damage that alcohol does in our society, but, on the other hand, we also have to recognise and acknowledge freedom of speech and the freedom to advertise legal products. It is a very dangerous path to travel when we regulate completely against the advertising of what can be, when consumed in moderate amounts, an enjoyable product. It is really challenging the freedom of the majority of the adult population who drink, and drink responsibly. But for those who do not drink responsibly, would a ban on alcohol advertising right across the board have any effect? For those who go about on Friday or Saturday nights and get, shall we say, plastered, or drunk, or create havoc, whether a ban would have any impact on those people is rather questionable, indeed.

This bill addresses only selected aspects of liquor management, and in my view it pre-empts other legislation going through the House. Really, rather than banning advertising outright, we should give wider consideration to context. There is the sale of alcohol, its supply, and, as one of the previous speakers mentioned, its control and consumption—for example, the licensing of retailers who sell alcohol, as well as point of sale requirements at the point of retail or wholesale distribution. Another aspect that is particularly important in mitigating the damage that alcohol does in our society is the public education about the consumption of alcohol, particularly by our youth.

This bill has also been overtaken by the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill, which was introduced last year by the previous Government and which had its first reading in March of this year. It is currently before the Justice and Electoral Committee, which will report back on 10 September. So in my view this bill is highly redundant. As we have already heard, the Law Commission is also undertaking a full review of the Sale of Liquor Act, and it has been made clear to the commission that liquor issues are a matter of priority for this Government. We have asked the Law Commission to produce a report ahead of the scheduled date that the previous Government set for it, and again that is an example of this Government taking action where the previous Government lapsed into inaction. So I speak against this bill. I think it is redundant, I do not think it is good legislation, and I thank members for their time.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) : I will take a fairly short call on the Liquor Advertising (Television and Radio) Bill this evening. The call is for only 5 minutes, so we will see how far we go. It is interesting that the two speakers from the Government benches have talked about the ironic position of the Green Party putting forward the two bills that we have been speaking about this evening. There is some irony—

Hon David Carter: Ha, ha!

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: —the Minister of Agriculture had a chuckle there—in the position those members are taking, as well. We are talking, essentially, about two public health issues, and I think that the Green Party is trying to achieve improvements in public health measures. We are also talking about freedoms. The previous speaker, Sam Lotu-Iiga, spoke about the freedom to advertise a legal substance, yet earlier on he voted against giving people the freedom to use a substance that could alleviate their pain, a substance that is already available in a limited way—

Paul Quinn: Illegal.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No, that is exactly my point, I tell Mr Quinn. The substance is already available in a limited way for pain relief, but the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill was about expanding that availability and providing freedom for people to use that substance for pain relief. I tell Mr Quinn that cannabis is not illegal for that purpose. There are avenues through which people can already use it. However, we are not talking about that bill at the moment. I just wanted to reflect on that irony, given that irony is something that Government members have been interested in.

As I said, the Liquor Advertising (Television and Radio) Bill is a public health measure, and if I thought that it would have a positive effect on the public health issues around alcohol, I would vote for it. However, I do not think that this bill will achieve those outcomes, so I will not be voting in favour of it this evening. I do not believe that a blanket ban on broadcast advertising will have that positive effect. I have some reservations about the ability of people in New Zealand who produce wine and boutique beers for sale on the market to advertise their products in a responsible way. I also have concerns that the bill would simply shift the advertising spend away from broadcast advertising into other avenues for advertising.

I believe that the public health issues around alcohol are not, as some speakers have spoken about tonight, just about young people getting boozed and causing havoc. They are also about people who have mental health issues, and about those who are chronically addicted to alcohol. They are about domestic violence. They are about a whole range of issues. We have spoken several times in this House about the economic effects of alcohol and its detrimental effects. I do not think that this measure will have the impact that the Green Party hopes it will have. For that reason, I will not be able to vote for this bill this evening.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) : We have created a culture in New Zealand where we demonise some drugs such as cannabis, which we have just been talking about, and we tolerate, encourage, and indeed glamorise other drugs such as alcohol. It reminds me of when someone came to a select committee once and said that in Saudi Arabia it was exactly the opposite. They demonise alcohol, and cut off people’s arms for drinking alcohol, but they tolerate, accept, and indeed encourage cannabis. So each culture has drugs that they demonise, and drugs that they glamorise; in ours it is alcohol we glamorise and cannabis we demonise. The thing is, though, that it is extraordinary that alcohol is a highly intoxicating, highly addictive drug, and nobody can dispute the fact that it causes huge harm, huge damage, in our society. Indeed, when we look at the statistics, we have to say that alcohol must be one of the most destructive drugs in New Zealand. It contributes to over 1,000 deaths a year. I mean, that is phenomenal—1,000 deaths a year. Others have mentioned that. It contributes to 25 percent of fatal injuries and 20 percent of serious crashes on our roads, and half of all serious crimes in New Zealand are related to alcohol. That is incredible.

If we were serious about violent crime—the Minister of Justice and so many others in this House are going on about violent crime, and saying that we must reduce violent crime in our society—then one of the first things we would do is reduce the accessibility, the overwhelming accessibility, of alcohol and the aggressive marketing of alcohol, all over New Zealand. Yet what is happening is quite to the contrary. This addictive and psychoactive drug is sold in virtually every dairy and supermarket in New Zealand, and even in dairies right outside schools—dairies that are carefully positioned right outside schools. In fact, there are liquor outlets right outside schools. Alcohol is available everywhere in New Zealand, and it is marketed aggressively by the liquor industry, but particularly to young people with all the alcopops, and so forth. Every time we go to sports fields, we see alcohol advertising, as we do at rugby matches with the All Blacks, and so forth. But all of that aggressive advertising normalises and legitimises alcohol.

So it is supremely ironic that on one hand in this Parliament we constantly wring our hands and deplore the fact that adolescent New Zealanders are drinking alcohol at younger and younger ages. We deplore the binge-drinking culture in New Zealand, yet at the same time we do absolutely nothing to reduce the accessibility, the incredible accessibility, of alcohol and its aggressive advertising.

Members of the Government and the ACT Party are constantly banging the anti-crime drum and going on and on about violent crime. They were only too happy to lock people up: “Let’s build more prisons. Let’s have three strikes and they’re out. Let’s do anything to reduce violent crime, but we won’t do anything about the aggressive advertising of alcohol in New Zealand, which fuels and contributes to the fact that alcohol contributes to 50 percent of crime in New Zealand.”

The Minister Dr Coleman admitted that his party’s opposition to this bill is because free-to-air broadcasters depend on liquor advertising for their survival. He effectively said that we cannot hurt the revenue of broadcasters, so we cannot support this bill. We cannot do anything about advertising. Dr Coleman needs to understand, as Associate Minister of Health, that the primary concern in this Parliament should be not the revenues of broadcasters and advertisers, but public health concerns. Frankly, I was appalled that the main reason the National Government is opposing this is the influence of the alcohol and advertising industries. Clearly, the alcohol and advertising industries exert huge power and influence over this Parliament, and that is the reason why the excellent bill of 2 weeks ago was voted down in this House.