David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Narcotic Drugs Amendment Bill 2016, which is to enable legally controlled cannabis cultivation in Australia whilst meeting Australia has obligations under the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961. Currently we can already import or export cannabinoids or derivatives of cannabis sativa or raw cannabis material but it is certainly not legal to grow it in Australia. As no doubt the House has already heard, we have had opium and opiate production on an industrial agricultural scale in Australia for many years. In fact, we are demonstrably probably one of the biggest legal supplies of opiates in the world. That has been controlled under the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967, under which cannabis is classified.

Before we go into what is proposed, I will say a few words about why it is needed. Many people have had stories outlined to them in the popular press of people with unfortunate diseases, whether it be advanced malignancy, multiple sclerosis, some children afflicted with intractable forms of epilepsy, finding great relief that finally, after many variations of pharmacology treatment, they can get something that helps the condition.

The first time I as a medical practitioner came to this awareness was many years ago when my late brother-in-law, who suffered from breast cancer in his midtwenties, had advanced disease. The only thing that helped him with his protracted vomiting as a result of the horrible cancer that spread to his meningeal system inside his brain was marijuana. Many children suffering from paediatric epilepsy have had miraculous responses to cannabis derived oils. People with multiple sclerosis and other painful conditions have responded; although some of those pain responses are not uniform. There are very many other analgesics or painkillers available.

For the record, there are many people in Australia, particularly in my electorate, who have raised their eyebrows and thought, 'Are you really legalising cannabis?' I would just like to place on the record that is not the intent of this legislation. We know in other countries, particularly North America, the medicinal or the so-called medicinal use of marijuana for vague and ill-defined medical conditions has been a soft convenient avenue to obtain marijuana. That is not what is intended by this bill. There have been derivative drugs from cannabis made—CBD oils, and an inhalant medication—which have been useful for the wasting and fading away that is seen in advanced HIV, AIDS and in malignancy, and they are very useful. So it is great that we are going to apply some due process and allow the production and cultivation of specific strains of marijuana and subsequently down the track of cannabis oils and tinctures and get some science behind it all. There is a crying need for it and it is great that we have got this bipartisan support to the process.

What is proposed under this bill are two streams of licensing. First of all, there will be a licence for the cultivation of cannabis so that medicinal cannabis products can be manufactured. The second is a licence for research into cannabis plants and the many other potential uses. The literature is filled with ad hoc descriptions of benefit from cannabis but this will allow us to apply some science to it. There will be strict conditions. People who obtain a licence must fall under the definition of a fit and proper person, and that will be applied rigorously. Business associates, partners and any other criminal linkages would be exhaustively checked, and there must be a substantial business history. The licence holders are designed to be people without any criminal elements or links, of course. There has to be an obvious supply arrangement between the manufacturers or the processors in order to get such a licence. The amount of cannabis that can be produced will be controlled by the licence, and that is very important if we are going to meet our commitments under the single convention so that we cannot stockpile huge amounts of marijuana that could then be diverted into illegal trade.

The security of the crop of marijuana, or cannabis, is paramount. You only have to visit the Apple Isle to see the security around the production of opium poppies for the production of opiates and heroin and all the other opiates that are required for medicinal purposes, and that same principle will apply with this. There will be penalties for offences or breaches of any of the conditions of the licence. There will be regular inspection, monitoring and investigation processes in place, and there will be the ability to give infringement notices for those licence holders that breach their conditions. As I mentioned earlier, there has to be a formal and a demonstrable business relationship between the licenced manufacturer and having a recognised and legitimate supply chain in place to meet the criteria for a licence.

The amount that needs to be produced will be determined by licenced medical practitioners in association with the TGA, and all the regular state licensing and scheduling of drugs will continue. It is not going to bypass any of the existing regulatory pathways in place; it will just complement them and allow the development and research of further cannabis related products—perhaps further CBD and low-hallucinogenic forms of cannabis. The main emphasis is to expand the area of medicinal cannabis, not regular marijuana use and the use of medicinal reasons as an excuse to get it. That is far away from the intent of this legislation or the push from around the country to legalise it.

I am looking forward to some good outcomes. New South Wales has taken a lead in the research. This legislation will permit their initiatives to go further. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context