Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to be speaking on the Narcotic Drugs Legislation Amendment Bill 2016, because the amendments contained within this bill go to a matter that I have campaigned on for quite some time and a matter that I feel very passionate about and that is putting in place a nationally consistent scheme, which facilitates the availability of medicinal cannabis for people who are suffering pain or undergoing a course of treatment for which there is no alternative medicine and access to medicinal cannabis has provided them with relief from the symptoms that they are suffering from. The bill fixes a number of issues that arose after the original amendment bill was introduced into the House in February this year. Labor supported the legislation when it was first brought before the House in February this year; in fact, we take some credit for the fact that the matter was brought on. In my speech on the second reading I highlighted the concern that Labor had with the speed with which the bill had been brought into the House for debate, even calling for the bill to be referred to a short inquiry in the other place. In my speech during the second reading debate I called for that inquiry to occur 'to ensure that the policy intent of the government and the Labor opposition has found its way into the bill and that there are no unintended consequences'. Today it appears that there were some unintended consequences—unintended consequences that probably would have been flushed out if such an inquiry had been allowed to occur.

The government at the time assured Labor that the bill required immediate support. It did not say why. We later found out why. It said it required immediate support and there was no time for any detailed examination. We had to pass it through both houses of parliament and enact it as soon as possible. The minister said in her second reading speech:

It is important that the government is able to communicate on the full regulatory costs of this scheme as soon as possible in order to allow potential applicants to plan their businesses and complete their applications.

We have absolutely no problems with that course of action, but the fact that there is an amending bill before the House not nine months later indicates that a short perfunctory inquiry would have thrown some light on the deficiencies that we are now legislating to fix. We now know that the real reason that they were in such a God-almighty rush to get the bill through this place and the other place is that the Prime Minister was feverishly working on his plans to call a double dissolution election. The rest, as they say, is history—and not a happy history for those on the other side.

We are, disappointingly, back in this place debating amendments to the original bill because there are loopholes and problems with the original legislation. We want to work with the government. We want to provide them patriotic support to fix the shambles they are so regularly creating. This is like so much that we are seeing from the government. This point needs to be made: a week ago the scheme to permit licensing for the manufacture and production of medicinal cannabis in this country kicked in, but we are back here amending the enabling legislation.

What do the amendments do? We are told they are needed to protect the sensitive law enforcement information that is available to determine whether an applicant for a cannabis licence is a fit and proper person. They are needed to guard against cannabis licences being transferred from one person to another person. I interrupt myself there for a minute. It does not take the intelligence of a genius to know that, if you are granting a licence for something as sensitive as the production of medicinal cannabis and you have put in place an entire scheme to ensure you have strict controls on that licence, from the get-go, from the very beginning, you should ensure that such a licence is not a transferable instrument. Any second year law student could have told you that you would put in place a scheme to ensure that the licence created under this act is not a transferable instrument. Unfortunately, the government in their haste to move the legislation into the House ahead of a double dissolution election did not rest upon this basic fact. The amendments are also needed to recover the cost of regulating the new medicinal cannabis industry.

All of these amendments will enjoy our support. They should have been done when the legislation was introduced in the House in the first place. Speaking for Labor in my speech during the second reading debate I said:

Labor gives this commitment today. We will work with the government and all interested parties to ensure that the Commonwealth government can provide national leadership to get the job done and ensure that we can—as we aspire to do—make these products available in a safe and legal way.

Our position remains unchanged today. We continue to support sensible legislation in good faith. Labor supports medicinal cannabis. Labor was the first national alternative party of government that called for the introduction of a national scheme. We are happy that the government took up that call. They made some mistakes. We have pointed them out. We are happy that the government has taken up that call. We are committed to the approvals process through the Therapeutic Goods Administration, where medicines are approved on the basis of evidence and science. We did not support dragging our heels, which is what the Liberal government did until February this year.

There is more that needs to be done to ensure that we have in place a scheme that will permit universal access on a medical basis and on the basis of good science to medicinal cannabis treatments across the states in this country. We have said on many occasions that it is not a simple process. The fact that we are here amending the enabling legislation is evidence of that. There are myriad treaties and laws at the state and federal levels—and, indeed, I suspect there are a raft of local government regulations as well—that impact on every aspect of the supply chain. So it is not a simple task. We acknowledge that. It is why we have offered the government our full support in this process.

We should never forget what lies at the heart of this issue and that is to ensure that no family is put in a position where they have to choose between getting their loved ones the medicines that they need to relieve them of agonising pain and abiding by the law. We should be able to do both. Labor want this scheme to succeed. We say that very frankly. We want it to succeed so we can provide ongoing certain legal relief to young men like Ben Oakley, who I have had many conversations with over the last 12 months. Ben is a young bloke who is living in the Illawarra. He suffers from something which is colloquially known as stiff person syndrome. Ben has been a champion in the Illawarra—and throughout the country, in fact—for medicinal cannabis.

To say he is living proof of the tremendous life-giving effects that medicinal cannabis can have on somebody in his situation is no exaggeration: were it not for the administration of medicinal cannabis treatment, Ben would probably not be alive today. It is not an exaggeration, because one of the indications that people with stiff person syndrome suffer with is uncontrollable fits. I am not talking about a sneeze, I am not talking about a small spasm; I am talking about somebody who can suffer from literally hundreds and hundreds of fits in a 24-hour period. Many of these fits leave Ben in a position where both of his parents struggle to constrain him, and any one of those fits could lead to the loss of his life.

Ben's father, a trained nurse, has researched this deeply, and he is keen to ensure that he is no longer in a position where he is potentially breaking the law because he is accessing the medicines which are keeping his son alive. Because of the course of medicinal cannabis that Ben has been taking, he has been able to get his life back together. He will not return—in the near term, in any event—to doing triathlons, as he was doing not six months before the time when he was struck down by this life-altering condition. But, because of the treatment he is receiving, he has been able to get his car licence—an aspiration that any normal 18-year-old boy has—and he is able to attend university and get his life back on track.

When we are debating dry legislation in the heated exchanges that often occur across the bar table during debates in places such as this, it is always important that we keep in mind for whom and why we are doing it. It is for the thousands of people like Ben Oakley and their families, who know that a nationally consistent scheme that provides safe and reliable medicines that can be administered to them on the recommendation of their doctor is going to make an enormous difference to their lives, and that is why we support the legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party, Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always good to follow the member for Whitlam. I thank him for his brief contribution. I have a suitably brief contribution to make myself on the Narcotic Drugs Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 and a related bill.

Can I say at the outset that there has been a very unusual champion of this legislation in the former member for Hinkler, Paul Neville, who has some personal circumstances in which one of his grandchildren suffers from severe epileptic seizures. As a staunch conservative, the former member for Hinkler has been very supportive and very outspoken on the need for this legislation, and I certainly commend him for his actions.

The primary purpose of this legislation is to put in place protections for information provided by law enforcement agencies used in decision-making under the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967. Without these protections, law enforcement agencies will not provide to the Commonwealth the information necessary to prevent criminal elements from infiltrating the scheme for the cultivation of cannabis for medicinal purposes.

Amendments to the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967, administered by the Office of Drug Control within the Department of Health, will enable the cultivation of medicinal cannabis. The ODC is accepting licence applications from individuals or businesses right now. There are three types of licences relating to the supply of medicinal cannabis products. They are: the medicinal cannabis licence authorising cultivation or production or both; the cannabis research licence authorising a similar process for research purposes; or a manufacturing licence authorising the manufacture of a drug or product. Before any activity under a licence can commence, the licensee will need to obtain a permit. This will set out the types and amount of cannabis that can be grown and/or produced, and the types and quantities of medicinal cannabis products that can be manufactured under the said licence.

All applicants for licences under the medicinal cannabis framework will be subject to regulation. Licensing decisions on the cultivation of cannabis plants, production of cannabis or cannabis resins, and the manufacture of drugs are underpinned by a 'fit and proper person' test and other tests that are designed to exclude those that may represent a risk of diversion of the cannabis crop because of their criminal history or criminal activities. These regulations also include an applicant's criminal history, financial viability, business history and capacity to comply with the licensing requirements. Sensitive law enforcement information will be used for the purposes of making licensing decisions under the Narcotic Drugs Act.

We should not forget that cannabis is an illicit drug. It does have a high street value. The legal cultivation of cannabis for medicinal purposes may be attractive to those criminal elements looking to profit by diverting some or all of the crop to illegal uses. In addition, prohibited substances that are narcotic drugs authorised to be manufactured under the Narcotic Drugs Act may also be subject to this diversion risk. It is essential to take all possible actions to prevent the infiltration of organised crime into the medicinal cannabis framework or into the manufacture of narcotic drugs. In order to achieve this, extensive background checks of the individuals involved in cannabis cultivation and the manufacturing enterprises will be required.

Information such as conviction history and noncompliance with requirements under the Narcotic Drugs Act is accessible. It is either publicly available or held by the Commonwealth. However, other information may be intelligence gathered by, and known only to, law enforcement agencies. Therefore the protection of this information would give law enforcement agencies confidence that they can share pertinent information that will not be released to the applicant or to third parties, thus protecting ongoing criminal investigations, investigation techniques and, very importantly, the lives of those involved in those investigations. This bill also includes provisions to allow the secretary to refuse to grant a licence where the applicant has provided false or misleading information, and also allows for the revocation of licences and permits where applicable standards are not met. Allowing for the creation and existence of a legitimate industry to ensure that Australia patients can get access to medicinal cannabis products provides a benefit to that industry by opening a new market for commercial cultivation, manufacture and sale of medicinal cannabis products.

The global supplies of cannabis for medicinal purposes are relatively scarce and expensive. This legislation will allow Australia to develop a safe, legal and sustainable local supply of cannabis for medicinal or scientific purposes. In turn, this will support greater local opportunities to research, develop, manufacture and supply medicinal cannabis based products for suitable products. Other benefits of a local supply include a potential new agricultural industry within Australia, similar to that already established for the use of Australian-grown poppies for medicinal and scientific purposes.

In my electorate of Hinkler there is already a company that has been breeding ultra-low-THC industrial hemp plants since 1998. Agri Fibre Industries has developed of a range of plants for food, fibre and other uses, including medicinal cannabis. With these changes to the legislation and the introduction of the licensing system, innovative firms like Agri Fibre realise there is potential for new industry in the region. This Bundaberg based company has explored making building products from hemp, which could make inroads into environmentally sustainable buildings. They have also considered the potential of low-THC hemp for food production. Some of its breeds, including large seed varieties, can be grown all year round. I hope that innovative companies such as Agri Fibre Industries are well-placed now to grab this opportunity with both hands and see what develops. If it results in a new agricultural industry, which would mean more jobs, I hope it happens in my part of the world.

The amendments already made to the Narcotics Drugs Act 1967, as well as the legislation I am speaking to today, show that Australia is on track to have a nationally-consistent licensing scheme regulating the controlled cultivation of cannabis for medicinal or scientific processes. It is another example of this government taking on challenging reforms, and it has been challenging. We will deliver sensible changes that will benefit Australians in need. It shows that this government is doing exactly what we promised: we are delivering. I commend the bill to the House.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor will not oppose these bills, as the member for Whitlam has already indicated. These bills, the Narcotic Drugs Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 and the Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Bill 2016 are here only because of the government's shambolic legislating ability. In February this year the parliament passed the Narcotic Drugs Amendment Act 2016. That act amended the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 to establish a national scheme for access to medicinal cannabis. Labor supported that legislation. We had led the charge for a national scheme so that access to medicinal cannabis was equal from state to state. That should have been the end of the legislative process. The government should have been able to get on with implementing the new national scheme. But that was not the case.

Now, more than six months later, we learn that the government's legislation included loopholes and errors, and that these bills are needed to fix those errors. Everything in these bills could have, and indeed should have, been included in the government's legislation in February. For example, the government should have known that it needed to protect the sensitive law enforcement information that is available to determine whether an applicant for a cannabis licence is a 'fit and proper person'; that it should guard against cannabis licenses transferring from one person to another—for example, when a business changes hands; and, thirdly, that the legislation was needed to recover the cost of regulating the new medicinal cannabis industries. These are obvious considerations that should not have been overlooked, as the member for Whitlam quite rightly pointed out earlier on.

The government's shambolic processes have real consequences. In her second reading speech on these bills, the Minister for Health said:

It is important that the government is able to communicate on the full regulatory costs of this scheme as soon as possible in order to allow potential applicants to plan their businesses and complete their applications.

Yet here we are, still considering this legislation, a week after the start of the national scheme on 30 October. By the minister's own account, that could delay the development of the medicinal cannabis industry, and delay access to medicinal cannabis for Australians who need it to manage pain or medical conditions.

This shambolic health legislation is nothing new from this chaotic government. We saw another example of that only today when a member of the government seconded a motion that criticised the government itself. On 4 May, on the eve of the election campaign, the government signed a contract with Telstra to operate the National Cancer Screening Register, despite not having passed the necessary legislation. The government introduced that legislation in this parliament. It tried to rush the bills through to retrospectively authorise its $220 million contract with Telstra. When Labor and the crossbench raised concerns and referred the bills to a Senate inquiry, the health minister accused Labor of a 'hysterical tirade'. But the inquiry uncovered serious concerns with the government's legislation. Not least of all, the government's own privacy and information commissioner identified six loopholes in that legislation that needed to be fixed. Ultimately, the government was forced to accept many of Labor's amendments to its legislation. Far from a 'hysterical tirade', Labor improved the government's bills and added protections for Australians' most sensitive health information.

So perhaps we should not be surprised that this government is taking a second crack at legislating a national scheme for medicinal cannabis. That said, Labor does support a national scheme for medicinal cannabis. We supported it back in February and we continue to support it. For some, that decision at that time was to be controversial. But Labor is driven by science and compassion with respect to this issue. We firmly believe the time has come for a national scheme.

Labor understands that some Australians cannot find relief from pain with existing therapeutic goods and have debilitating and life threatening conditions. There are thousands of Australians who are suffering from unbearable pain, muscle spasticity, conditions like multiple sclerosis, and nausea from chemotherapy who may benefit from taking medicinal cannabis. No-one can imagine how horrific it must be for someone to see their child, their partner or their parent in immense pain, knowing that relief is available but currently illegal. I have spoken to some people who fall into this category myself. Patients who are suffering from a terminal illness or other serious medical condition should be allowed access to safe, reliable and legal medicinal cannabis if prescribed by their doctor. And I stress the point of 'legal' medicinal cannabis, because I have no doubt that some of these people, in order to relieve their pain, are perhaps accessing the cannabis illegally, not knowing exactly what is in the substance and perhaps taking additional risks because of that.

No person and no family should have to choose between getting the medicine they need and breaking the law. Right now families who are accessing medicinal cannabis products on the black market are at risk of being arrested and possibly convicted, unable to determine the exact ingredients and the quality of the medicine they are taking, and not protected in any way by any independent regulatory authority. This legislation does that. Only the Commonwealth can ensure that there is a national scheme which ensures equity of access and a safe and reliable supply. The national scheme that passed in February deals with supply by establishing a tightly controlled supply chain with multiple security measures, and it deals with demand by allowing the prescription of these medicines by a doctor through the Special Access Scheme, the Authorised Prescriber Scheme and medical trials.

This is not about allowing free access to a drug for recreational use; it is about ensuring that there is a legal and regulated market so that family members and carers are not forced to rely on the black market to relieve the pain of their loved ones. It is worth noting that the Victorian Labor government is perhaps driving the national agenda on this and pushing ahead. The Commonwealth was forced to act in February because, I suspect, if it had not then some other states would have done so. The Victorian government has committed to legalising access to locally manufactured medicine or cannabis products for use in exceptional circumstances from 2017. Again, I would not be surprised if other states were to follow. We also acknowledge that the New South Wales government has pursued medical trials of cannabis, as well as reforms to penalties for possession and use for particular classes of people.

As I said earlier, Labor supports this legislation, and we have done so from the outset. It is a pity that these amendments need to be brought into the House. But, having said that, we accept that the legislation is in the best interests of the people of this country, and it will be supported by us.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party, Assistant Minister for Rural Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Narcotic Drugs Legislation Amendment Bill is being put forward to protect the integrity and security of the Medicinal Cannabis Scheme. As you would no doubt appreciate, cannabis is a crop of significant interest to criminal elements, and preventing infiltration into the legitimate medicinal cannabis industry must be a high priority for the government. This bill puts in place mechanisms supporting the sharing and subsequent protection of very sensitive law enforcement information to prevent such infiltration. Further, the Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Bill is being put forward to encourage a level playing field with the nascent medicinal cannabis industry in Australia through imposition of annual charges. These charges support a risk based inspection model that is designed to target licence holders where concerns over compliance with licence conditions, regulations or the legislation may have arisen. The risk based model ensures that industry participants are regulated at an appropriate level based on compliance history.

Both of these bills act to round out the existing narcotic drugs legislation and prepare the Commonwealth for the enactment of the medicinal cannabis scheme. I thank all the members of the House, on both sides, for their valuable contributions and the bipartisan nature of their support in the debate on these bills.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that these bills be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.