Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to hear the member for Throsby say that Labor will support the Narcotics Drug Amendment Bill 2016, and I am pleased to say that both sides of the House appear to be in heated agreement that this bill is at the forefront both of medical science and human compassion.

The bill represents policy which is sensible, enlightened and humane. This is because it is, first and foremost, about the alleviation of human suffering in a way that is ethical, efficient and legal. This is most especially the case for the terminally ill, who will be the direct beneficiaries of this bill and the treatment which flows from it, but it is also the case for affected families and friends who will be indirect beneficiaries by virtue of knowing that their loved one's pain has been eased. No-one who has borne witness to the pain of someone in the throes of terminal decline would wish either experience—that of the afflicted or the carer—on another. Any observer to such suffering would agree readily to whatever was legally possible and available to lessen such misery, and this bill seeks to do just that, enshrining a practical and clinically proven improvement plan to pain relief in Australian law.

Despite Australia's affluence and modernity, terminal illness in our country is widespread. Mine is a medical family. My wife is a career nurse, our daughter is a surgical registrar in Melbourne and we are in contact with many family, friends and patient groups in very poor health and who require targeted relief from pain and suffering. But those interested in this bill will also encompass members of the wider Australian community, many of whom might reasonably have concerns about the legality and protections built into this intended scheme in order to prevent and curtail unintended and illegal trafficking of narcotics in Australia.

It is fair to say that these concerns have been heightened in recent days by the extraordinary and, may I say, irresponsible Greens party proposal to decriminalise the drug ice—methamphetamine. It is a proposal that has been met in my community with understandable outrage, and it is very clear to me that the Greens party has learned nothing from the National Ice Taskforce.

Public concern about these matters of illegal drugs is reasonable and understandable and has been taken into account by the government when crafting the provisions in this bill. I note also that this bill has already been widely well received across the political spectrum. We hear an example of that this morning in the bipartisan speeches the member for Throsby and I are giving and also in the vocal support and endorsement of the broader Australian community. I am pleased to say that, in my home state of Tasmania, Premier Will Hodgman has provided active and high-profile endorsement to policy action in this area. In so doing, the Premier of Tasmania has shown himself to be a progressive and compassionate political leader.

If and when this bill is passed and becomes law, it will contribute to considerable good in every state and territory, including my home state of Tasmania. But, as ever, this bill represents a balancing act between competing priorities and views. In this instance, I and many others across the political divide are likely to be in fierce agreement that this bill gets the balance right.

Let me now address the nature of this bill, the good which will accrue from it and the community safeguards that are included in it. The government has taken great pains to frame this bill and the policy effects that flow from it. An appreciation of policy risks and desired benefits is, after all, always a dynamic tension in every bill that is debated in this House. The main and rather obvious risk relates to public perception and trust. Sections of the community quite rightly harbour valid concerns and reservations about the likelihood of this bill giving rise to an increase in cannabis used for illegal, non-medicinal purposes.

On this point, I can state unequivocally that this bill in no way legalises cannabis for non-medicinal purposes in Australia. Cannabis will continue to be categorised as a highly regulated drug, and its use and supply will continue to be controlled by a number of existing Commonwealth, state and territory laws. Importantly, the Australian government is not proposing to legalise the cultivation of cannabis for other than clinically-prescribed and closely regulated medicinal purposes.

As a result, these legislative amendments will ensure that Australia continues to comply with its international obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs in relation to cannabis for medicinal use and related research. Furthermore, the Commonwealth will amend the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 to establish the authority within the Department of Health to approve and regulate the cultivation of cannabis for medicinal and scientific use required under the single convention. Cannabis material cultivated in Australia may then for the first time be legally manufactured into products to be used to conduct clinical trials and develop products to be used in accordance with the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. The TGA standard should be our standard for quality, safety and efficacy. These products can also be made available for patients outside clinical trial protocols through other pathways in the Therapeutic Goods Act.

The Commonwealth already has sufficient legislative authority to regulate the import, export and manufacture of cannabinoids and cannabis raw material, but cultivating cannabis in Australia for the express purposes of medicinal or scientific use is yet to be approved. Additionally, the Commonwealth is working with states and territories to ensure that their respective legislation allows for access to defined patient groups. The bill has been crafted to ensure that cannabis is only available by medical prescription from an Australian formally credentialed medical professional. This constitutes an enduring central protection in the bill.

This approach establishes a formal delineation between cannabis which is legally and professionally prescribed by a medical practitioner and that which is otherwise illegally sought by an individual user and/or peddled by criminals, gangs or syndicates. In any such case, delineation is apt to further assist police agencies to monitor and track both legal and illegal cannabis transactions Australia-wide. As a result, the use of cannabis for the specific and prescribed purpose of abating patient suffering and the continued hunt for illegal cannabis distributors or networks are not mutually exclusive. Rather, they are complementary elements of a holistic and sensible policy.

Much potential good will accrue from this bill. Amongst the most significant of these positives is that it will dignify and formalise within a legally controllable framework what already takes place on a regular basis. In other words, it will make legal that which is morally right and humanely justifiable while at the same time upholding the law against that which remains illegal in the eyes of the law and many in our community.

And I echo the words of the member for Throsby relating to the many reports of seriously ill patients and their families in our communities who are currently accessing black market cannabis to relieve suffering. In doing so, they are exposing themselves to the risk of criminal prosecution and the health risks of using products that may not be safe and may not deliver expected results. Accessing illegal products in this underground manner is potentially dangerous and expensive. Because of this, the Commonwealth government is committed to facilitating the supply of legal, safe, quality medicinal products to appropriate patient groups.

This means enabling the domestic cultivation of cannabis for use in clinical trials, scientific research and other medicinal purposes as allowed under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. To achieve this goal, this bill seeks to amend the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967, in order to ensure that Australia meets its obligations under the United Nations single convention. The government has approached this issue in a way which is collaborative and constructive. Since the minister's announcement on 17 October 2015, the Department of Health, in conjunction with other Commonwealth agencies and in discussion with state and territory governments, has been analysing the amendments required to the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967.

Let me speak briefly on Community safeguards. The Commonwealth will continue to safeguard the community against the illegal use of cannabis. Furthermore, the government is confident that its suite of protective measures will ensure that the illegal trafficking of cannabis is not further promoted by this bill. To this end, the government has made a commitment to work collaboratively with states and territories to not only share knowledge and information on issues relating to the appropriate use of therapeutic products derived from cannabis, but to also consider health and law enforcement concerns for its control in Australia.

It is, of course, vital that we have a clear national licensing scheme to ensure the integrity of crops for medicinal or scientific purposes only. These legislative amendments will allow the government to track the development of medicinal cannabis products from cultivation to supply. Additionally, from a law enforcement perspective, there are a number of issues which require consideration when exploring options for access to medicinal cannabis. They include: ensuring secure possession and use among patients and carers alike; preventing the influence of criminal elements on the production, supply, transportation and administration of cannabis for its approved use; identifying child safety and welfare requirements; enforcing road safety, relating to driving under the influence of cannabis; and mitigating crime associated with an increased diversion of controlled drugs for unauthorised use or misuse. Commonwealth and state and territory criminal, drugs and poisons legislations will be both complementary and comprehensive, in order to ensure that all necessary controls are in place.

In the end, the subject of this bill is not a silver bullet to end pain and suffering—particularly those with chronic conditions or who are approaching the end of life. Nevertheless, it does constitute a significant and welcome addition to the modern arsenal of pain relief for the terminally ill. For this reason alone, this bill should be welcomed. But, it goes much further still, to guarantee careful and prescriptive targeting, and safeguards against illegal use. It is inescapable that this is good policy.

It also a case of world's best, most-informed and enlightened approach to the increasing need for available and affordable pain relief. Australia's ageing population will only accentuate this requirement in the future. Accordingly, I commend the Narcotic Drugs Amendment Bill 2016, to the House.

See this speech in context