House debates

Wednesday, 24 February 2021

Bills

Narcotic Drugs Amendment (Medicinal Cannabis) Bill 2021; Second Reading

5:03 pm

Photo of Brian MitchellBrian Mitchell (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Narcotic Drugs Amendment (Medicinal Cannabis) Bill 2021. In my personal view, the current system for patients needing to access medicinal cannabis is far too complicated, and it has been for too many years. Hurdles have been put in the way of accessing this treatment that have been entirely unnecessary and served little purpose, other than to burden people with costs and inconvenience. We know that medicinal cannabis is already being used by hundreds of thousands of Australians to treat conditions such as epilepsy, multiple sclerosis and chronic pain and to reduce the effects of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Those are just a few examples. The anecdotal evidence from the people suffering these conditions is overwhelmingly positive. Yet we, as legislators, and the medical community, as regulators, have continued to disbelieve those people for too long. 'Show us the evidence!' we demand when they tell us, straight to our faces, that medicinal cannabis has changed their lives and the lives of their loved ones for the better.

This bill implements recommendations of the McMillan review. It's another step in the right direction, at least. The final report of the review was tabled in parliament in September 2019 and contained 26 recommendations to 'improve the regulatory framework for the cultivation, production and manufacture of medicinal cannabis in Australia'. A key finding of the report was that industry participants, including producers and researchers, encountered numerous barriers to supplying legal medicinal cannabis under the current regulatory and licensing regime. Significant barriers remain to the development of an efficient and transparent research and manufacturing industry. These barriers increase risks and costs for Australian companies seeking to manufacture medicinal cannabis and delay the widespread availability of an affordable Australian-made treatment for patients. This bill aims to address these issues and that's why Labor is supporting it.

The two main measures in the bill are: (1) to consolidate the licensing structure into a single licence framework instead of the current three-licence structure to reduce regulatory burden on an industry which often undertakes activities across the three areas of cultivation, production and manufacture; and (2) to undertake assessments relating to supply chains later in the application process, at the consideration of application for a permit rather than at the earlier licensing stage. This is to support business investment certainty while maintaining regulatory oversight.

The amendments in the bill seek to strike a balance between mitigating the risk of diversion of cannabis to non-medical uses—that's a bit of a euphemism!—and Australia's obligations under international law, as outdated and burdensome as some of that international law now is. There is a need to ensure that medicinal cannabis regulation in Australia facilitates ease of compliance for industry participants; does not impede growth and productivity in the industry; and supports secure, local and affordable supply.

What this bill does not do is directly address the issue of patient access. The Morrison government is, quite frankly, dragging its flat feet on an issue that could make a real difference to the lives of Australians suffering from illness and chronic pain. The Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs conducted an inquiry into barriers to patient access to medicinal cannabis in Australia which reported in March 2020. The government has had nearly a year to respond to the inquiry's recommendations, which are supported by patient advocates, but it has not done so. Some patient advocacy groups, such as United In Compassion, see the government's silence on this as evidence it's not serious about addressing patient access issues.

In my home state of Tasmania it's particularly difficult for patients to access medicinal cannabis products. In response to an online plea from 75-year-old Peter Fielding about the inhumane lack of availability of medicinal cannabis, a Tasmanian government spokesperson said that medicinal cannabis products were 'unproven'. Mr Fielding, who suffers terminal cancer, described his own experience in using medicinal cannabis: saying, 'Almost overnight I could eat again and my speech improved. Before medicinal cannabis, my pain level was eight out of 10. After cannabis, there were many days when I felt no pain at all.' When a patient tells us to our faces that the treatment transforms their life, who are we to state that the treatment is 'unproven'? The arrogance of such a position is astounding.

Under Tasmania's controlled access scheme there are currently fewer than 20 patients approved for the use of medicinal cannabis, despite thousands of Tasmanians wanting to access it. Getting approval is a burdensome process. You need to see a GP, who sends you to a specialist, who writes off for approval and, then, if it's approved, the specialist can provide a prescription. And if you're on the public waiting list to see a specialist, good luck on getting an appointment within months. Many Tasmanians have no option other than to break the law in order to access a product that improves their quality of life or the quality of life of loved ones in their care without the risk of addiction that exists with pharmaceutical painkillers—which are, ironically, much easier to access.

I have written to the Tasmanian Minister for Health on behalf of constituents who have been unable to access medicinal cannabis, despite it being recommended by their treating specialist. One constituent, Rosie, had her request straight-out denied by her GP, who refused to refer her to a specialist to seek a prescription. Instead, she's out of pocket by almost $300 every six weeks to cover the cost of the telehealth appointment with an interstate doctor to get a prescription for the cannabis oil product that she relies on for relief from chronic pain.

I do note that the Therapeutic Goods Administration recently approved low-dose cannabis oil to be bought over the counter at pharmacies. Again, this is a welcome step. Theoretically, it will mean that patients will no longer require a referral, specialist approval or a prescription to be able to legally acquire and use low-dose CBD. While this is a welcome change, it does not necessarily solve the wider problem of access. With no products approved to date for over-the-counter use, it could be another 12 months before patients are buying medicinal cannabis products from their local pharmacy.

I also note that, as far as I understand, it's a very expensive and time-consuming process for companies wanting to get on the approved list. By all means, we need to make sure that what's being sold is safe, but I have been told it can be in the millions of dollars just to get on the list to be approved. So companies in this field have to make the economic decision of whether is it worth their while to provide a product for which there may be a fairly low volume of sales.

I have two facilities in my electorate producing medicinal cannabis: Extractas Bioscience, a Tasmanian Alkaloids plant in the north of the state, and Tasmanian Botanics, in the south. The facility at Tasmanian Alkaloids was opened in mid-2020 and will produce nine million bottles of cannabidiol each year. It covers all aspects of the cultivation, extraction and bottling of medicinal cannabis. Tasmanian Botanics, similarly, produces a range of liquid products of various strengths and cannabinoid combinations. The security and stringent quality controls at these plants are something to behold. They is absolutely world class. However, the bulk of the products from both facilities serve the national and international markets, despite originating in a state where those who desperately want to access this product remain unable to do so with ease. It seems to me that both the Tasmanian government and the federal government are missing the potential and opportunity of medicinal cannabis both as a treatment to improve lives and as an economic contributor, particularly in the regions.

Australia, quite frankly, is way behind the eight ball. Our international competitors are leaping ahead in the development of medicinal cannabis and reaping the economic rewards as a result. It is long past time that we took off the blinkers, removed the barriers and allowed this industry to properly flourish. As I say, this bill is one step in that process, but it's taking far too long. I take the point the member for Fairfax made in his contribution that the coalition got the ball rolling in 2016, but I can only imagine what the reaction would have been from the coalition if a Labor government, prior to 2013, had tried to legislate for medicinal cannabis. I can only imagine what the political environment would have been like. Would it have been as reasonable as we, a Labor opposition, have allowed this to be? You haven't had any nonsense on our side of the chamber about legalising drugs, for instance, and that sort of ridiculous political showmanship that goes on. I am not sure that the same would have been able to be said if a Labor government had tried to legislate in this sphere before 2013, particularly with Tony Abbott as the then opposition leader. If a Labor government had been trying to legislate medicinal cannabis in that environment, would we have seen the sensible outcomes that we have allowed this government to proceed with? We know this should be a matter of science and medicine and economic contribution, not something to be caught up in the silly rhetoric of the so-called drug wars of the past. On that, I commend the bill to the House and look forward to further development in this area.

Comments

No comments