Dave Sharma (Wentworth, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Narcotic Drugs Amendment (Medicinal Cannabis) Bill 2021 amends the Narcotic Drugs Acts 1967, which makes provision in relation to narcotic drugs in accordance with Australia's obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. In 2016, the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 was amended to provide a framework for regulating cannabis cultivation, cannabis production, and manufacture and research, with the ultimate aim of providing Australian patients with access to medicinal cannabis for therapeutic purposes, which is what we're discussing here today. The 2016 amendments included a requirement for a review of the operation of the medicinal cannabis scheme after two years, and it was the health minister, the member for Flinders, Greg Hunt, who appointed Professor John McMillan AO to conduct the review, on which he reported in 2019. The McMillan review made 26 recommendations, and some of those were implemented in stage 1 revisions of the Narcotic Drugs Regulation 2016, and these amendments that we are discussing today are part of stage 2 of adopting Professor McMillan's recommendations.

This bill is intended to support the development of an Australian medicinal cannabis industry for the benefit of Australian patients, and, importantly, the bill also includes a clear statement of its purpose in that regard and an assurance that medicinal cannabis products will be available to patients in Australia for therapeutic purposes. I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Lyons in which he talked about constituents in his own electorate and elsewhere in Tasmania who have benefited from such products or have been told they would benefit from such products. I expect many members here have heard similar stories. I haven't had any personal experience with medicinal cannabis, but when I was the Australian ambassador to Israel I got to know someone who is known as one of the fathers of medicinal cannabis, Professor Raphael Mechoulam, who, at the Hebrew University in the 1960s and 1970s, helped to first isolate, structurally elucidate and then synthesise the main active principles of cannabis. Professor Mechoulam is now 90 years old. He is still in good health and still teaching from time to time at Hebrew University. He was seen as one of the gurus, if you like, or one of the go-tos for this industry.

I recall that, when I hosted a visit by the then New South Wales Premier Mike Baird, he brought with him Professor Mary O'Kane, who was then the New South Wales Chief Scientist, and they wanted to seek out Professor Mechoulam because of some of the stories that Premier Mike Baird had heard directly from constituents, particularly those who were suffering from cancer but also others who wanted to be able to access medicinal cannabis for therapeutic purposes and were frustrated about the inability to do so in Australia. I hope this bill goes some way towards addressing that. I know it moves the ball further down the field, perhaps not as far as some would like. I acknowledge the frustrations that the member for Lyons articulated, but I think the bill does get us closer to the purpose and seeks to strike a balance between facilitating not only the cultivation, production and manufacture of a cannabis drug but also ensuring that medicinal cannabis products are available to Australians with our obligations under international instruments, such as the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, to safeguard against illegal practices and to provide for safe and sustainable pathways for patient access to medicinal cannabis therapies.

This bill does a number of things to benefit Australian patients and improve access to medicinal cannabis. Firstly, it seeks to reduce the burden of regulation in the licence assessment process. It will replace the obligation for separate licences for any cultivation, production, manufacture and research activity with a single licence. Significantly, the majority of these single licences will be perpetual—that is, not requiring renewal, thus reducing the regulatory burden. So, rather than a business having to go through a regular licence renewal application and assessment process every few years for, potentially, multiple licences governing the cultivation, production, manufacture and research activity, they can do it once and it will be perpetual. This will help allow licence applicants and holders to appropriately manage their business investment and planning decisions, and the obligation to hold a permit for day-to-day operations, including specification of the allowed quantity of medicinal cannabis, will provide sufficient oversight. A number of businesses are interested in the cultivation and production of medicinal cannabis in Australia. In fact, as an agricultural producer and given our climate, terrain and topography, we're quite well suited to this. A number of producers in this area are interested in establishing operations in Australia, and this bill will help to facilitate that.

The bill maintains the current specified supply pathways for medicinal cannabis, including for clinical trials under the Therapeutic Goods Act and approvals and authorities under that act. These are supplemented by additional pathways for medical and scientific research additional to clinical trials, provided it does not involve administration to humans, and the development of a reference standard. There is also a separate regulation-making power to prescribe additional supply pathways anticipated to ensure compliance with the good manufacturing requirements under the Therapeutic Goods Act.

In addition to helping provide greater certainty to businesses and reducing duplicative processes with amendments to the licence regime, the bill reaffirms the government's commitment to patient availability of a safe, legal and sustainable supply of cannabis derived medicines. In doing so, as I said earlier, it seeks to strike a balance to ensure that medicinal cannabis products are available to patients for therapeutic purposes and make sure that Australia continues to honour our international obligations and we don't unwittingly create an industry in cannabis products for non-medicinal and unlawful purposes.

I am also aware that there are a number of patient classes. Cancer and palliative patients are an obvious class or category. For sufferers from epilepsy there have been medical trials, medical evidence and peer-reviewed papers to the effect that medicinal cannabis can help to reduce the frequency and lessen the severity of epileptic seizures as well. I have family friends with children who have suffered from epilepsy, and they are keen to get this approved.

With that, I think this bill strikes the right balance between helping improve patient access to medicinal cannabis, helping to allow an Australian industry to develop itself, helping to reduce the regulatory burden, and maintaining important safeguards and checks and balances to ensure that this industry is used for its proper purpose. I command this bill to the House.

See this speech in context