Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to join my colleague the member for Throsby in supporting the Narcotic Drugs Amendment Bill 2016 in this House. At the outset, I would like to pay tribute to the member for Throsby for the work he has done in developing Labor's policy position in this area and in helping to promote this important reform for the benefit of the many Australians who are counting on this parliament.

I have to say the government has been a bit of a late starter when it comes to this particular area. When I first got elected to the shadow ministry, I went and spoke to the then Minister for Health, Minister Dutton. It was not necessarily on the government's radar at that point but there was some indication that something might need to happen. Stephen and I of course then went to see Minister Ley very early on, and it has taken a while for us to get to this point. So I am very pleased that the government has come to the point it is at now.

It has also happened because really there is not a choice for the Commonwealth in this space at the moment. We have states and territories—Victoria and New South Wales in particular and some interest in Tasmania—wanting to proceed with clinical trials. If the Commonwealth does not act, there is a missing piece of all of this. I acknowledge the work that has been done to get to this point. I think there are still some elements that are going to continue to have to be worked through and this bill is one of the first steps in terms of the Commonwealth doing that.

As I said, I also want to particularly pay tribute to Jill Hennessy and Daniel Andrews in Victoria, who have really pushed the Commonwealth to be in this position. If they had not, the trials in Victoria could not have gone ahead in the way we had anticipated they should.

Ultimately what this bill is about, absolutely at its heart, is easing the suffering of those for whom medicinal cannabis can ease their pain, ease their suffering and provide relief that cannot be obtained by the existing alternatives. This is not about decriminalising marijuana for recreational use. I want to make that very clear. This is not about in any way entering the debate about how we deal with drug abuse or drug use in this country. This is solely about ensuring there is a legal and regulated market for medicinal cannabis so that carers can access a safe, legal and reliable supply of pain relief for their loved ones—people like Cherie and Trevor Dell in Sydney, who use medicinal cannabis to help their three-year-old daughter Abbey, who suffers from a rare genetic disorder known as CDKL5, which results in constant violent seizures. Cherie and Trevor are not criminals. They are just parents trying to do what any parent does, the best for their child.

Cherie and Trevor tried every legal medicine and treatment for Abbey but found the only product that worked to ease her seizures was medicinal cannabis oil. As they told the Leader of the Opposition when he visited them last year, before the cannabis oil treatments Abbey suffered dozens of seizures every day, with some of them lasting 45 minutes. Now they have possibly one per day and some days are seizure free. But cannabis oil is illegal in this country and, desperate to relieve Abbey's suffering, they turned to the underground suppliers that provide illegal medicinal cannabis oil to families in need across the country. As a result of this, they were visited by the police.

No-one here, it should be stressed, in any way blames the police for this; they are simply enforcing the law as it stands. That is why we here today, working with the states and territories to have changes to the law to benefit not only Cherie, Trevor and Abbey but also the many Australians with epilepsy who believe the evidence that cannabidiol, one of the compounds in marijuana, can stop seizures and boost the quality of life of those with epilepsy. People like Dan Haslam, the young man with terminal cancer whose story of how he used cannabis to treat his severe pain and nausea from chemotherapy was so moving for many across the country. He certainly has been a very persuasive voice, as has his mum, in this debate. And, as it always should be when we talk about making important changes to health legislation in this country, it is important that it is evidence based and strongly supported by the medical literature that cannabinoids may be used for treatment in a number of key areas including: treatment of muscle spasticity and neuropathic pain, notably in multiple sclerosis; treatment of nausea, vomiting in chemotherapy patients; appetite stimulation, particularly for AIDS patients; and pain relief in palliation.

The Australian Medical Association has expressed cautious support for further trials. In a statement on 1 May 2014 it said:

There is a growing body of evidence that certain cannabinoids are effective in the treatment of chronic pain, particularly as an alternative or adjunct to the use of opiates, when the development of opiate tolerance and withdrawal can be avoided. Controlled trials have also shown positive effects of cannabis preparations on bladder dysfunction in multiple sclerosis, tics in Tourette syndrome, and involuntary movements associated with Parkinson’s disease.

All of us here accept that, given the very strong feelings about drug law reform in Australia, for some this decision will be controversial. But driven by science, by evidence and by compassion, we firmly believe that the time has come for a national scheme. It has not been political to observe that during the term of this government there has been little opportunity for Labor to find common ground in health policy with the Liberal and National party. However, on this measure—the introduction of medicines based on cannabis—we have agreement.

We are, of course, in many respects, lagging behind the states, with the governments of New South Wales and Victoria already pushing ahead with their state-based schemes. The Victorian Premier in particular deserves, as I said, much credit for providing national leadership, and driving the national agenda on medicinal cannabis with the Victorian government committed to legalising access to locally manufactured medicinal cannabis products for use in exceptional circumstances from 2017.

The New South Wales government has also vigorously pursued medical trials of cannabis, and provided law enforcement by 'depenalising' offences related to possession and use for particular classes of people. But Labor strongly believe that only the Commonwealth government can actually lead this debate. As the Leader of the Opposition said, when he wrote to the Prime Minister back in November:

Only the Commonwealth Government can ensure there is a national scheme which ensures equity of access and a safe and reliable supply …

  …   …   …

… a person’s access to—

pain relief—

should not be dictated by … [the] state or territory they live in.

It is important that these changes are delivered as soon as possible so that families currently relying on medicinal cannabis to ease the pain of their loved ones can do so legally and safely. The decriminalisation of the use of medicinal cannabis will also enable more carers to access much needed respite. We cannot tolerate a situation where access to legal and safe medicinal cannabis is determined by your postcode, and allow a system to continue where parents in one state can legally and safely relieve the suffering of their children, while those in another state are faced with a choice of allowing that suffering to continue, or to risk prosecution.

Only the Commonwealth government can ensure there is a national scheme which ensures equity of access and a safe and reliable supply. Only the Commonwealth can establish a tightly controlled supply chain with multiple security measures. Only the Commonwealth can enable the prescription of these medicines by a doctor, if that is ultimately where we are able to land on this in the future. Only the Commonwealth can establish a licensing scheme for the cultivation of cannabis for medical and scientific purposes by creating two types of licenses: an authorisation to cultivate cannabis for manufacture into medical cannabis products, and an authorisation to cultivate cannabis for scientific research into the cannabis plant that is to be used for medical purposes.

A key component, of course, of this bill is the establishment of a strict fit and proper person test that will apply to the applicant and also to associates of that applicant by assessing criminal history, business and family connections, and financial status. Perhaps the most important element of this legislation is that in providing a licencing arrangement for medical cannabis products, the TGA regulatory system is left untouched. That was an important consideration for us. We understand, and I acknowledge the presence of TGA staff here today, this is incredibly complex. I understand, Philippa, this would not have been an easy bill to draft, nor is it an easy regime to, in fact, be working your way through, but it is though proper regulation. It is going to be important that the Commonwealth does participate in that. This is a crucial development, and far superior to other suggestions in this place that a separate, specific legislator be established.

The TGA is well-regarded globally as an effective regulator of therapeutic products, and it sends a very important signal that, in many ways, what we are doing here is no different than the regime adopted for the approval of any other therapeutic good. As I said at the outset, it is crucial that the Commonwealth leads the way here. It is crucial that it does so to ensure that a patchwork of medical cannabis licit access arrangements do not emerge across the variety states and territories. We are also concerned that these drugs will remain expensive, and potentially prohibitively expensive for some families. Approval of medical cannabis does not mean subsidised access via the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and it is vital that Australian governments also provide national leadership to ensure a fair approach to access of this medicine is achieved. No family should have to choose between getting their loved one the medicine they need and breaking the law. We will certainly be supporting this bill. I commend it to the House.

See this speech in context