Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. I'm very proud to bring my Medicinal Cannabis Legislation Amendment (Securing Patient Access) Bill 2017 to the Senate. On behalf of those many thousands of Australians who are suffering as a result of this government's failure to secure timely access to a medication that we know relieves people of suffering.

I'm introducing this bill in the name of Australian patients who are sick and tired of the obstacles that are put in front of them and of the regulatory nightmare that this government's medicinal cannabis framework has become. Doctors who desperately want to give treatments that relieve people of distressing symptoms are facing hurdle after hurdle after hurdle when they try to access medicinal cannabis. I have to say that it is remarkable that we have a government of this nation that would make life for terminally-ill patients so difficult, and I am proud that the Senate, based on the preliminary discussions we've had with members of the chamber, looks like it will support this move to secure timely access to medicinal cannabis.

We worked very constructively during the early days of the government's legislation on medicinal cannabis. The history of this legislation is one that we Greens are very, very proud of. We established a cross-party working group—members of the government, members of the opposition, members of the crossbench—to work constructively to try and bring the stories of people who are suffering here to Canberra and put them in front of politicians so that they could understand just how important it was that individuals who are suffering needlessly and have potentially a remedy that could relieve them of symptoms like intractable nausea, pain, muscle spasms and so on.

We worked very constructively through that cross-party working group, and the pressure came to bear on the government, who ultimately said, 'We will move. Please don't introduce your legislation, because we are prepared to act.' The Greens had legislation ready to go. In good faith, we accepted the government's word that they would introduce legislation that would make sure that individuals who were suffering got timely access to medicinal cannabis. I'll be very frank: it was a mistake. It was a mistake to trust this government. It was a mistake to hand over the legislative response to medicinal cannabis to a government who has shown itself to be more interested in giving the appearance of doing something when, in substance, it is making life so difficult for suffering people. Instead of having a pathway to access, what we do have is this disaster of regulation and red tape, which I can only assume is because they have some ideological objection to providing life-saving medicines to people simply because there's stigma associated with cannabis.

When it comes to the patients who we know will benefit from this bill, let's remember who they are. We are only talking about patients who are suffering and who, by definition, have a terminal illness. What the government are doing by opposing this legislation is saying, 'We want to make your life more difficult in your final months when you're suffering from terminal cancer which might produce symptoms like intractable nausea.' That is, you're having chemotherapy and you can't keep your food down because of the nausea that's not responding to the traditional agents that we give you. If you have a response to medicinal cannabis that allows you to tolerate food, that helps you maintain your condition and that can give you, in your final months of life, a higher quality of life, the government are saying, 'We don't want that. We're going to stop that.'

The Australian Greens are standing up for those patients. We're standing up for those patients because we don't believe any government should get in the way of access to medicines that make their final few months a little easier with a little less suffering. This bill makes two small changes—they're only small—to give dying patients rapid access to medicinal cannabis when a doctor has prescribed it. Let's be clear about this: this is only after medicinal cannabis has been prescribed by a doctor.

The first amendment is to ensure that the government follows what the Senate has already ordered this government to do, and that is to allow the importation of medicinal cannabis for terminally ill patients through what's known as category A of the Special Access Scheme. Only a few short weeks ago in this chamber we saw a Greens motion supported by the Labor Party and members of the crossbench—I see Senator Hinch is behind me; he's also been a strong advocate for medicinal cannabis. We saw members of the crossbench and the Labor Party introduce a motion that should have made access to medicinal cannabis through category A of the Special Access Scheme much easier and, instead, the government refused to accept the will of the Senate. The government has ignored the Senate, has threatened importers and has gone so far as to say that they would have their permits revoked if they followed the law. This bill ensures that the government can no longer block that importation of medicinal cannabis for category A—that is, those people who have a terminal illness.

The second amendment to this legislation just levels the playing field so that, when they become available, Australian medicinal cannabis products, not just those from overseas, can be provided through category A. The problem we have at the moment is we don't have a mature medicinal cannabis industry in this country, and that is why we needed, through our previous motion, to allow the importation of medicinal cannabis for people with a terminal illness. But we think that the moment Australian product comes online that should also be made available through the Special Access Scheme. We want a vibrant, mature, effective medicinal cannabis scheme in Australia. We know it's good for patients, but it's also good for Australian farmers. We want to make sure that that industry thrives, and we want to make sure that they have the best incentives to supply medicinal cannabis to terminal patients who need it most.

I know that this bill won't fix everything. One of the problems we have is that we have different layers of regulation. Once people get through the first hurdle—that is, federal red tape—there are also the layers of regulation at a state level which need to be addressed. We can't do much about that right now, except continue to put pressure to bear on those states who are also dragging their heels. What we can do is make sure that that first barrier—that is, the restrictions that are put in place by the federal government—is addressed.

I have spoken with many patients and their families; I know how much this change means to them. We all know the story of Lucy Haslam's son, Dan, who was a young man with terminal bowel cancer. This is a man in his 20s who developed bowel cancer, was having chemotherapy and wasn't getting any relief from his nausea from those traditional agents that we use to treat chemotherapy induced nausea. He got instant relief from medicinal cannabis after it was suggested to his family by a friend, and as a result he was able to tolerate food and his quality of life improved immeasurably. I have spoken to patients who have had brain tumours and, again, have found that the relief that medicinal cannabis provides them is significant. While it might not save their lives, it improves their quality of life in those final few months. We Greens stand here today with those many thousands of Australians who are suffering, or indeed are caring for someone who is suffering, and who know that as a result of the lack of access to these treatments they are being denied treatment that could make such a difference to their quality of life. We are going to keep fighting until patients can safely and quickly access these medicines.

I'm so proud to bring this bill to the Senate. I'm absolutely delighted that we're achieving a rare victory here today, and that is that the majority of the Senate looks like it will stand with us in opposition to this government's cruel intransigence. We will also pursue this in the lower house. I know there are members of the LNP who say they support medicinal cannabis, who want medicinal cannabis to be made available from doctors through a regulated framework and who want to make sure that patients who live in their own constituencies get access to these medicines. I know they're out there because I've spoken to them. I say this to them right now: this legislation looks like it will pass the Senate. Have the guts and the decency to stand up when this legislation makes it through to the lower house. Cross the floor if you have to. We only need one or two of you to stand up and have a bit of courage to say you stand with patients and their needs, not your own political self-interest, and we can get this through both houses of parliament. In the meantime, I'll be pursuing a meeting with Minister Hunt. I'll be doing what I can to ensure that he understands just how critical it is that this bill gets through the Senate.

When we are elected to this place, we make a commitment to those people who elect us that we will act in their interests—that we will come to this place and represent them. We have an opportunity to help people who are now suffering, whose lives will be cut short because of the tragedy of a terminal illness. We have an obligation to them to make sure we do everything we can to make their final days on this earth as tolerable as possible and to relieve them of the pain and suffering that they're experiencing. I can think of no greater obligation given to us in this place, and today's an opportunity for members to stand up and indicate that they stand with those patients.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With indulgence, I want to thank all the members of the Senate for their warm words of support and encouragement following my first speech a couple of days ago.

The government will not be supporting this bill. The issue of medical cannabis is a recurring one that the government has resolved in a way that provides access to those Australians who need it, makes the use of medical marijuana a medical decision and keeps adequate safeguards in place to ensure access is not misused. It has been made clear that medical cannabis is potentially valuable in some cases, particularly in a palliative care setting, but the media surrounding this bill has, unfortunately, been extremely misleading. Central to this false campaign is the allegation that the Office of Drug Control is breaching legislation by not permitting the import of medical cannabis products for use in Special Access Scheme category A. There is no truth to this. It is based on a misinterpretation of a letter sent to existing importers under the bulk import policy reinforcing the standards of their import permissions and how they are conditioned for supply under the Special Access Scheme category B and Authorised Prescriber Scheme. This letter was a necessary measure to ensure the regulations were being followed, due to the fact that at least one importer interpreted the disallowance motion as meaning that they could supply under the Special Access Scheme category A, which was not allowed. Doing so would breach the conditions of their licence and potentially be subject to regulatory action under the Customs Act 1901. The letter contained no language that stated or implied in any way that they could not import product for the purpose of supplying under category A. The Office of Drug Control has always been very clear about this and has always given Special Access Scheme category A swift application processing times—I understand it's a one-day priority processing time.

There have been five notifications to the TGA since the disallowance motion, but the Office of Drug Control has only received and processed one import permission application for category A. In accordance with the regulation, namely regulation 5 of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956, the office must thoroughly and necessarily make an assessment of each Special Access Scheme category A importation.

I feel it's important to note at this point that this scheme was established by the government in October 2016, with bipartisan support, in order to ensure access to medicinal cannabis for terminally ill patients. This issue has been looked at extensively by the parliament—and often with a bipartisan approach. The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee report in 2015 was one such example. This report covered extensively the safety and efficacy of medicinal marijuana and the regulatory framework around its use. One thing that was very clear from this report was that, at best, medical benefits of marijuana are equivocal, untested and in need of further research. The report said:

For example, Professor Wayne Hall, Director of the Centre for Youth Substance Abuse Research at the University of Queensland, expressed the view that the current research indicated medicinal cannabis is 'at best, modestly effective for some purposes (for example vomiting and nausea) and probably for others (for example chronic pain, depression, muscle spasm)'. Professor Hall stated:

'An informed policy towards the medical use of cannabinoids requires much better evidence than we currently have...we need clinical trials of the safety and efficacy of CBD and other cannabinoids in treating intractable epilepsy and chronic pain. Evidence from these trials is essential for rational decisions to be made about the medical use of cannabinoids.'

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians considered that 'while medicinal marijuana shows some potential for certain patients, further research is required to determine its efficacy and it should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other medicine'.

Painaustralia expressed the view that, for individuals with chronic non-cancer pain, there is little proven evidence for the effectiveness of cannabinoids in helping patients, and that it did not endorse the use of cannabinoids for this group of patients 'until such time as a clear therapeutic role for [cannabinoids] is identified in the scientific literature'.

On a point of clarification, medicinal cannabis can be administered in a variety of ways that do not include smoking, which very obviously carries heavy known risks. These include oral administration by a pill, oromucosal spray, tinctures, ointments, the ingestion of oil derived from cannabis plants and vaporisation of a herbal product. As a side note, the Turnbull government also does not support changing the current legal status of vaping for a number of reasons, but, first and foremost, that there is limited scientific and medical understanding of the effects. Evidence, when making these kinds of regulatory decisions, is vital.

The science and evidence behind medical cannabis is complex and incomplete. The Australian government is taking advice on the matter from the Therapeutic Goods Administration and medical professionals, including the Australian and New Zealand Society of Palliative Medicine and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. These professionals agree with the current arrangements and do not support the changes as set out. It is potentially dangerous to patient safety to allow access to medicinal cannabis products through the Special Access Scheme category A, due to the fact that unlike other unregistered medicines under this scheme, with the single exception of Sativex, which is a formulated extract of the Cannabis sativa plant, no medicinal cannabis products have been subject to a full safety, quality and efficacy assessment by a competent medicines regulator anywhere in the world.

If government allowed medical products onto the market that have not been properly tested, we would be rightly criticised and all those opposite would be the first ones to stand up and criticise us. There is no easily accessible evidence of safety available that can be used to guide prescribing decisions that work in conjunction with the various medico-legal obligations that doctors have to their patients. Despite all this, I want to make it quite clear that terminally ill patients already have access to medicinal cannabis products and are gaining access to them. In consultation with their clinicians, patients are able to gain timely approvals from the Therapeutic Goods Administration to prescribe the medicine under Special Access Scheme category B, and that can happen in as little as one day. Any rhetoric about excessive delays or wait periods is false. The delays are occurring where the prescribing doctor has insufficient knowledge of the product, along with the risks and benefits associated with the medicine, and, therefore, cannot justify their decision in prescribing it, or cannot describe the product which they wish to prescribe.

For any condition, it is never in the best interests of the patient to have an ill-informed medical practitioner prescribing their care. However, this is a delicate matter and an area where having an informed doctor at the heart of these decisions is crucial. The government's policy on medicinal cannabis is central to a medical decision. It puts the medical professional at the centre of the decision to prescribe. In this way, the government adheres to the advice of the medical profession. If the medical professional does not support the use of a particular pathway, then the government will listen to that advice. Naturally, there are those who are strong supporters of medicinal cannabis being extremely accessible and seek to increase the availability of the drug. However, this is not necessarily a choice that the medical profession endorses. For example, on 13 June this year, AMA president Michael Gannon said:

… doctors are reluctant to prescribe medicinal cannabis. This is no different to any other new drug, new technology, new operation; we want to be assured of the safety, assured of the effectiveness.

Again, if governments weren't able to be very sure of the safety and effectiveness, and if doctors are not sure of the safety and effectiveness, then I think criticising the current regulatory regime is a mistake.

The Australian government has a responsibility to the Australian people to ensure the changes we make in this space are not done recklessly or without adequate forethought and research. Michael Gannon later said in the same interview:

… let's not forget, we're talking about cannabis, we're talking about a substance that, used in the form it's used by most people, is a major source of mental illness in our community. It's absolutely essential that we're assured that whatever's being brought into the country, whatever's being brought in for prescription is safe …

Beyond our own legislation, Australia is subject to a number of different international obligations that exist under various treaties, including the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961, which specifies the obligations of signatory states for narcotic drugs listed in various schedules to the UN convention. The Department of Health in its submission to an earlier inquiry into this issue noted that the Commonwealth is responsible for the implementation of Australia's treaty obligations, stating:

The Commonwealth is responsible for the implementation of international agreements that it enters into and generally has the power to make legislation to implement Australia's treaty obligations. Accordingly, the Commonwealth is responsible for ensuring that any Commonwealth, State or Territory medicinal cannabis scheme is consistent with Australia's treaty obligations under the three drug control conventions …

Further to this, obviously, we do have an additional layer of complexity in our federation, which is that states and territories have their own initiatives in this space.

While the government will use many different sources to make decisions about the use of medicinal cannabis, we listen to the medical profession, and I think we need to continue to do that into the future. There is a demand for medicinal cannabis, and the path we currently have in place allows a safe, legal and effective way for terminally ill patients to gain access to medicinal cannabis. As of 17 October, there have been 287 individual patients who've been given access to medicinal cannabis either via the Special Access Scheme or an authorised prescriber. Additionally, there have been 21 licences granted for domestic cultivation: nine for medicinal cannabis cultivation, six for further research and six for manufacturing. So, we can see that the scheme is working. It is allowing patients who feel that they need this drug, with the support of their medical practitioner, to gain access. On that basis, the government will not support this bill and will not be looking at making changes to this regulatory environment.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In June, the Senate voted to improve access to medicinal cannabis for dying Australians. In particular, Labor and most of the crossbench voted to disallow the government's restrictions on access to medicinal cannabis under category A of the Special Access Scheme. I want to emphasise two things about category A from the outset of this debate. Firstly, this is a pathway for accessing therapeutic goods for people who are terminally ill. According to the Therapeutic Goods Administration—the TGA—category A is strictly limited to:

… patients who are seriously ill with a condition from which death is reasonably likely to occur within a matter of months, or from which premature death is reasonably likely to occur in the absence of early treatment.

We should be very clear in this debate that we are talking about dying Australians. Secondly, under category A of the Special Access Scheme, medicinal cannabis can only be accessed with a prescription from a doctor. We're not talking about illegal recreational use or inappropriate medicinal use; we're talking about dying patients who have a legitimate clinical need for medicinal cannabis as prescribed by their doctor.

In the debate in June, Labor did acknowledge the complexities of this issue. We acknowledged that some groups have raised concerns about the possible abuse of category A. We also acknowledged the need to strike a balance between access for dying patients and protection of the broader community. But, on balance, Labor was proud to stand up for the rights of terminally ill Australians who have been prescribed medicinal cannabis by their doctors. The Senate overwhelmingly agreed with Labor, voting 40 to 30 to disallow the government's restrictions. There ain't many votes in this place that unite Labor, the Greens, One Nation, Senator Lambie, Senator Hinch, Senator Gichuhi and Senator Leyonhjelm, but this one did exactly that. Among the crossbench, only the Nick Xenophon Team and Senator Bernardi supported the government. I would urge them to explain that vote and to reconsider their position today.

The Senate vote in June should have resolved this issue. Terminally ill patients should have had easier access to a prescribed therapy that can ease their suffering. But what we've seen from this government in the months since June is an attempt to block the parliament's will and to continue denying relief to dying Australians. Straight after the vote, we saw the health minister equate dying Australians and their families with drug smugglers. In the sort of temper tantrum that we saw from the Prime Minister on election night, the health minister said the disallowance was—and I quote from Fairfax—'Reckless and irresponsible,' saying it would put lives at risk and, potentially, make it easier for criminals to get drugs. It was a disgraceful slur for which the health minister still hasn't apologised. Mr Turnbull should be ashamed of the way his government has tried to scaremonger on this issue, stigmatising the dying people who are trying to access medicinal cannabis. Even worse, the government has put in place a new barrier to prevent people from accessing medicinal cannabis. In June, soon after the disallowance vote, the government wrote to medicinal cannabis importers, instructing them not to supply products to anyone holding a prescription under category A of the Special Access Scheme. This was despite the fact that the Senate had just voted to reopen that pathway. It says everything about Mr Turnbull. Instead of helping Australians with terminal illnesses and their families, his priority is to find a way to get around the Senate's decision to give dying Australians access to the pain relief they need.

That brings me to the bill before us today: the Medicinal Cannabis Legislation Amendment (Securing Patient Access) Bill 2017. Labor will support this bill which simply enshrines the intent of our disallowance vote in legislation. The bill would make two legislative changes to improve access to medicinal cannabis for terminally ill patients under category A of the Special Access Scheme. First, the bill would ensure that terminally ill patients can access imported medicinal cannabis products under category A. Again, this was the intent of the disallowance motion in June, but, because the government hasn't respected the parliament's will, this bill would amend the Customs Act 1901 to clarify that a licence, permission, consent or approval to import medicinal cannabis applies to category A as well as other pathways. Second, the bill seeks to ensure that terminally ill patients can access domestic medicinal cannabis products under category A when they become available. It would amend the Narcotics Drugs Act 1967 to add category A as one of the purposes for which the secretary of Health can grant a licence to manufacture medicinal cannabis in Australia.

I also want to use today's debate to make some broader comments on medicinal cannabis in Australia. Labor understand that medicinal cannabis can ease suffering for Australians who are dying. We also accept that there is evidence to support the use of medicinal cannabis for a number of other conditions, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and multiple sclerosis spasticity symptoms. That's why Labor led the way and introduced legislation for a national medicinal cannabis scheme in 2015 and supported the government's legislation when it was finally introduced in 2016. Over time, medicinal cannabis should be treated in the same way as other medicines. Products will be assessed for safety by the TGA and, where they pass that test, they will be prescribed by doctors, dispensed by pharmacists and possibly one day subsidised by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. A system of licences has also been established to govern research, cultivation, production and manufacture of medicinal cannabis products in Australia. But the government remains sceptical of medicinal cannabis and they have been too slow to implement the national scheme. Labor is particularly concerned that the government has done little to ensure a consistent supply of regulated and affordable product. The government has also failed to drive consistency across states on the legal treatment of people currently accessing medicinal cannabis. Bill Shorten has written to Mr Turnbull three times urging action and offering support, but patients have seen no change. That's one reason why Labor is supporting the bill that is before us, because the government has failed time and time again to improve other pathways.

I'd like to give some context to why this is an important issue by sharing one family's experience. Lucy Haslam is a Tamworth advocate and a mother who has campaigned for the legislation of medicinal cannabis after her son Dan was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Dan passed away in 2015. Lucy has continued to push for better access to medicinal cannabis for patients. In February, on the first anniversary of the passage of the federal medicinal cannabis legislation, Ms Haslam wrote that little had changed. Because of the time, I can't read the entire letter, but I would like to share some excerpts from it. She wrote:

On the first anniversary of Australian medicinal Cannabis legislation which was supposed to be the "missing link" for Australian patients (according to the previous Health Minister Sussan Ley), I want to shout from the rooftops that nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, although it pains me to say it, it is coming very close to being an outright lie.

Off the back of strong public support for patients like my son Dan who sought relief from serious disease and symptoms with medicinal Cannabis, the Government rode the wave of popular opinion, made all the right sympathetic noises, and passed legislation to allow for the cultivation, manufacture, and research into Cannabis for therapeutic purposes.

That sounds wonderful and I used to feel very proud that Dan's courage to speak out had some impact for the welfare of other patients. I thought it a beautiful tribute that the Legislation was passed on the first anniversary of his death.

However, Ms Haslam said that this pride of passage of the legislation has been replaced by anger that little has changed in reality. She wrote:

People often say to me you must be very pleased with how things have progressed ... so let me honestly answer that right now:

Patients are still criminals. This includes the terminally ill and children with intractable epilepsy.

Patients are still reliant on the black market and will be for a long while yet. They are still taking medicine procured from illicit sources which is like playing the lottery ... the medicine could be contaminated, each batch is likely to contain different cannabinoids, there is no certainty that there will be continuity of supply, there is no appropriate supervision by health professionals, there is no practical and viable alternative.

The black market is thriving; in fact, compassionate suppliers cannot meet demand. This is compounded by police raids which seize the medicine destined for patients who are reliant upon it. What happens when a child whose epilepsy is controlled by illicit Cannabis cannot access their next supply because police have confiscated it? Who will take responsibility for that?

The score card for the Government is looking very sad. In fact, I would say that on all aspects I give them a fail.

Now I can immediately hear the gatekeepers and authors of the regulations jumping up and down and saying "but there is a pathway for patients to lawfully access medicinal Cannabis." I agree in theory, but the problem is in putting it into practice.

The Special Access Scheme (SAS) provides that pathway. Let me explain very briefly as the process is so convoluted that word limits make full explanation an impossible task in this context.

To begin the process the very sick patient needs to find a doctor who is happy to prescribe Cannabis and who has the time to firstly undertake the arduous time consuming process to become an "Authorised Prescriber". This involves applications to State and Federal agencies. Once approved the doctor must then demonstrate to a committee the evidence for the patient's illness. (A little difficult after decades of blanket prohibition making research illegal).

The very sick patient then needs to find the product overseas (bearing in mind these products are not allowed to be advertised). Once found, the patient must negotiate a price and apply to the TGA to have it approved and they must also apply for Federal and State permits to have it imported. The patient bears the full cost plus the doctor's costs.

If they are successful in getting "Special Access" the approval only lasts three months and they are only allowed three months' supply. Think on this for a while ... A sick person must apply repeatedly placing an enormous burden on someone who is already battling illness and possibly even dying. This was the reality for a young Queensland patient with a brain tumour who took nineteen months to navigate the SAS. He is now several months into his second application and supplies are exhausted.

So, on the topic of patient access I would definitely give the Federal Government a huge fail!

This is a firsthand account of why things need to change, bringing us back to the bill here today.

If the Senate supports this bill, it will be a step in the right direction. But I want to assure the patients and families who are listening that Labor knows that much more needs to be done to ensure safe and timely access to medicinal cannabis across Australia, where it is clinically appropriate. Unlike the government, Labor is committed to working with patients and clinicians to make that a reality.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Medicinal Cannabis Legislation Amendment (Securing Patient Access) Bill 2017, and I thank Senator Di Natale for introducing it. The bill will allow medicinal cannabis to be imported for terminally ill patients through category A of the Special Access Scheme. It can already be imported for other purposes, such as for general patients, under category B of the scheme. This would remove all doubt that importers of medicinal cannabis can import medicinal cannabis for the terminally ill under category A and not just for category B patients. The bill also allows the government to authorise the manufacture of medicinal cannabis in Australia for terminally ill category A patients. This makes it clear that there's nothing in the law stopping the terminally ill from accessing domestically manufactured medicinal cannabis under the existing category A arrangements, so there would be no reason for the government to force terminally ill patients onto the slow road to pain relief that general patients are suffering along—the category B route.

The government loves generic arrangements like the category B arrangement. Its plan is for all patients to get access to medicinal cannabis in this way in a timely and low-stress manner. But the terminally ill patients of Australia don't live in the plans of the government; they live in reality—a reality in which the government's generic arrangements for access to medicinal cannabis are murderously slow. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the government and its health department officials have blood on their hands. Through their lack of urgency, through their comfort in slow bureaucratic processes that might eventually lead to access, once the working groups have met and written their reports, and through their unwillingness to change course once it became clear that these processes weren't working, they are responsible for terrible, unnecessary suffering and very likely a number of premature deaths.

The Liberal Democrats saw this coming. We supported the government's legislation, establishing a process to legalise medicinal marijuana. But we warned that the maintenance of a ban on recreational cannabis would ensure that the regime for medicinal cannabis would be a red-tape minefield for patients, and so it has come to pass. Recreational cannabis is not something I recommend, but it should be a matter of choice for adults. It's already a choice in a number of countries, including eight states in America. In any case, recreational cannabis use is less harmful than both alcohol and tobacco, according to bodies such as the UK's Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs. The Liberal Democrats are the only party in this parliament that supports legalising the supply, distribution, possession and use of cannabis, whether for medicinal or recreational purposes. This approach would not only let people pursue their own lifestyle choices and allow a better use of scarce police resources but also, by cutting the red tape surrounding the supply of medicinal cannabis, be the surest way to relieving suffering in Australia.

It is an unfortunate characteristic of Australia that we ignore the experience of the rest of the world and continue to rely on policies of prohibition. Cannabis, e-cigarettes and online gambling are three current examples, and yet prohibition will be no more successful than it ever has been. It's time we got our heads out of the sand. I commend this bill as a means to relieving suffering, but I commend even more the Liberal Democrats' policy of legalising cannabis regardless of its use.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For me, nothing demonstrates the capacity for community opinion to change and evolve more than the issue of medicinal cannabis and its use in our community. I hear very regularly people's personal accounts of loved ones, people in their friendship circles, who are benefiting from access to medicinal cannabis. I readily admit that, on this particular issue, I come with little personal experience. So I'm inclined to trust the position of those in our community who are trusted to make difficult decisions around access to drugs—the Therapeutic Goods Administration and, indeed, the government and the Honourable Greg Hunt, who, as the current Minister for Health, has responsibility for health matters.

But that's not to say that my opinions won't evolve or change over time. As a member of the Senate Community Affairs Committee, I regularly sit in the Senate estimates process—probably on 15 occasions now since I've been a senator—and I've regularly heard Senator Di Natale's questioning of health officials from the Department of Health and the Therapeutic Goods Administration around the access arrangements. I don't doubt his great passion and sincerity in the issue; Senator Di Natale was, of course, a general practitioner before coming to the Senate.

That said, it is wise to adopt a precautionary principle when it comes to giving people access to medicinal cannabis. And it is important to clear up some of the facts, to correct the public record, in regard to some of the media commentary that occurred around the 'securing patient access category A' issue in this parliament back in June. In June, we did talk about the disallowance motion which effectively has given passage to the bill we are talking about now. Key among these points for me is the allegation that has been made that the Office of Drug Control is breaching legislation in not permitting the import of medicinal cannabis products for use in Special Access Scheme category A.

Those who have paid attention to this particular allegation would know that the allegation rests on a misinterpretation of a letter that was sent to existing importers, under the bulk import policy, reminding them that their existing import permissions are conditional for supply under Special Access Scheme category B and authorised prescriber schemes. This letter was necessary as at least one importer interpreted the disallowance motion that was agreed to in June as meaning that they could supply under the securing patient access arrangements category A. So what we had was a situation where an importer misinterpreted what the disallowance motion meant, which made it necessary to write to every importer to make it very clear what the arrangements were. This particular importer would have breached the conditions of their permission and potentially been subjected to regulatory action under the Customs Act of 1901.

This letter did not say they could not import for the purposes of supplying under SAS category A. The Office of Drug Control has always given SAS category A import applications a one-day priority processing time and continues to do so for medicinal cannabis products that are characterised under the SAS category A. Since the disallowance motion, though there have been five notifications to the TGA, the office has only received and processed one import permission application for SAS category A. To discharge its regulatory obligations set out in regulation 5 of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956, the office must necessarily make an assessment of each SAS category A importation. In addition, the scheme established by the government, with bipartisan support, in October 2016 ensured access to medicinal cannabis for terminally ill patients.

I think it is important on matters such as this to lean heavily on the advice of those in our community who are trusted with looking after our health. On this issue I would argue that the view of the established medical community in our country—indeed, they are same people that the Greens and Labor would go to, and then they would come back to in this place with numerous quotes about why the AMA's views on particular issues should be heeded to. For consistency sake, if you are going to stand behind the views of the AMA on some issues then it's important perhaps to stand behind the AMA on issues of great sensitivity like issues of medicinal cannabis.

On that point, I think it is worth noting that in June 2017, with the disallowance motion having been debated, AMA President Dr Michael Gannon said—these are his quotes now; and I think this is particularly important given some of the discussions that have happened in recent days in this building around the mental health and wellbeing of people:

And let's not forget, we're talking about cannabis, we're talking about a substance that, used in the form it's used by most people, is a major source of mental illness in our community. It's absolutely essential that we're assured that whatever's being brought into the country, whatever's being brought in for prescription is safe…

Those are not my words and not the words of well-meaning senators. They are the words of the Dr Michael Gannon, the president of the Australian Medical Association. In that same Sky News interview in June of this year, he went on to say:

…we're satisfied with the process being put in chain by Minister Hunt and the Government using the Therapeutic Goods Administration, using appropriate care and diligence that is used for all other therapeutic products.

… … …

The Australian community would be outraged if prescription medication was rushed in, if someone said that it was okay to use. The Australian people would be outraged if new operations got brought in or, for that matter, new foodstuffs were brought in without appropriate care and safety.

Dr Gannon is saying that if you have a regulatory regime that keeps the community safe, that does allow for products to be brought to market and that does allow for products to be given to people to support their care, then it's important that there be some consistency around that regime in order to not only relieve people of pain and suffering but also protect them and others from unsafe products

I argue that a consistent national regime is important. I accept the point that Senator Leyonhjelm was making—that it's important that the regime be as responsive as it possibly can. But I would argue that, on this particular issue, the regime is a good one, is responsive and is meeting community expectations. What gives me confidence in arguing the government's position is that it is built on the clear medical evidence informed by the attitudes of those people who are trusted in the medical profession to provide advice to government. The government continues of course to take advice from the TGA and the medical profession, including the Australian and New Zealand Society of Palliative Medicine, which I think is a particularly important organisation when considering the safe and proper medicinal use of cannabis. It is taking the advice of the Australasian College of Physicians and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. The advice is that it is potentially dangerous to patient safety to allow access to medicinal cannabis products through the Special Access Scheme category A. Unlike other registered medicines, they are prescribed through this scheme with one medical exception: no medicinal cannabis product has been subjected to a full safety, quality and efficacy assessment by a competent medicines regulator anywhere in the world. There is not easily accessible evidence of safety available to guide prescribing conditions in accordance with doctors' medico-legal obligations to their patients.

I think this is the most important point in the brief time that is available to me: terminally ill patients already have access. This does not mean that terminally ill patients cannot have access to medicinal cannabis products. Where doctors have educated themselves and demonstrated a clear understanding of the risk or benefit profile, they gain timely approval from the Therapeutic Goods Administration to prescribe the medicine under the SAS B category. This happens in as little as one day. Let me paraphrase: the current regime protects safety, protects patient safety, puts requirements on medical practitioners, and that regulatory process is achieved within one day. The argument that ill people are suffering delays in regards to the use of medicinal cannabis in their care is not true. That statement provided to me by the Minister for Health demonstrates that point very clearly.

Let me end where I started. I'm lucky enough that in my family and in my circle of friends they are not suffering illness where they require medicinal cannabis. Would my attitude be different if I had a personal experience much closer to these sorts of issues? It may well be, but on this issue and at this particular point in time I think the Australian community should trust the advice of the government, which is informed by specialist medical practitioners and the Therapeutic Goods Administration to ensure that Australians don't just get the best possible care but are protected from unsafe and unproven medical products.

Skye Kakoschke-Moore (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to indicate the Nick Xenophon Team's support for this bill. At the outset, I wish to note that NXT has always enjoyed a very constructive working relationship with the Minister for Health, and we expect that this will continue.

However, respectfully, I think in this incidence the government ought to be doing more than it is. When the disallowance motion to which this bill relates was dealt with in June of this year, the minister provided NXT with a list of actions the government was prepared to take to ensure faster and more streamlined access to medicinal cannabis for terminally ill patients in particular. NXT acknowledges the government has made some progress in relation to the actions and undertakings, but there is still a long way to go. The longer we wait for the government to act, the longer we prolong the suffering of terminally ill patients.

This bill sends a very strong message to the government that we cannot continue to allow terminally ill patients to suffer unnecessarily. The Special Access Scheme category A is used for terminally ill patients for whom other treatments have failed. This bill does not broaden the scope of patients who would have access to medicinal cannabis under category A; nor does it weaken that regulatory framework. But it does seek to ensure that Australian medicinal cannabis and imported medicinal cannabis is available to those who need it most.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Medicinal Cannabis Legislation Amendment (Securing Patient Access) Bill 2017 and to indicate our support for the bill. It is a bill that seeks to simply reflect the will of this Senate from June this year, when the Senate disallowed the government's amendment to the Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1990 so that medicinal cannabis could be imported for use for patients under the Department of Health's Special Access Scheme category A, as well as category B. Three days after the disallowance motion was passed the government sent a sharply worded letter to importers, threatening them that, despite the Senate's disallowance motion, it would be a breach of permit and licence conditions if they were to supply any imported medicinal cannabis product to a patient under Special Access Scheme category A. I feel that was a bit of a heavy-handed approach by the government. It was an approach that failed to recognise the will of this Senate, but that can now be corrected through the passage of this bill.

The bill makes two legislative changes to improve access to medicinal cannabis for terminally ill patients under category A of the Special Access Scheme. Category A allows terminally ill patients access to unregistered therapeutic goods with a doctor's prescription, but without preapproval by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. It is, therefore, quicker than other pathways. Because of the threat made by the government to import permits, it amends the Customs Act 1901 to clarify that 'a licence, permission, consent or approval' to import medicinal cannabis applies to category A, as well as other pathways.

The second change is to ensure that terminally ill patients can access domestic medicinal cannabis products under category A when they become available. It amends the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 to add category A as one of the purposes for which the secretary of Health can grant a licence to manufacture medicinal cannabis in Australia. These amendments are for category A of the Special Access Scheme. Category A applies, as previous speakers have indicated, only to terminally ill patients.

As I've said for many years, when debating medicinal cannabis, this is a matter of compassion. That's what it's about; it's about compassion. It's about politicians, doctors and bureaucrats demonstrating some compassion towards a group of people who suffer from an incurable condition, with no idea what tomorrow will bring, or even if there will be a tomorrow. This is about a group of people who experience unimaginable pain on a daily basis, a group of people who have found that traditional medicines do not assist in suppressing their conditions. Whether it's a case of seizures in a young girl, like that of April, who I know, or a case of a mother's lung function, like that of Natalie, who I also know, this is about a minister hearing their pleas, listening to the community and doing the right thing.

If the vote goes the same way as the disallowance in June then this bill will pass the Senate. But it is then up to Minister Hunt to bring the matter to the House of Representatives, recognise that he made a mistake and that the amendment was too heavy handed, and accept the will of the Senate. The minister could even achieve half a what this bill seeks to achieve without even taking the bill to the House of Representatives. If the minister directed his department to change import permit conditions to allow imports for category A patients then the spirit of the disallowance would be enacted. This is about helping people who have been assessed by their doctor as terminally ill. We're not looking at a free-for-all here.

The Special Access Scheme is administered by the Department of Health, like all of our health regulations. It is a very rigorous process for a patient and their GP. It comprises three categories: A, B, and C. Under the government's policy, access is only available for Australians under category B. Category B is an application pathway, while category A is a notification pathway. The critical difference is that under category A the doctor only has to notify the Therapeutic Goods Administration that they are accessing medicinal cannabis products for patients who are seriously ill with a terminal illness, but under category B the doctor must first apply to the TGA and receive an approval letter before medicinal cannabis products can be accessed.

What we're debating today is recognising the mounting global evidence that medicinal cannabis is a safe, effective product for many, many people. We're debating the rights of doctors to work with their patients, to work with the TGA and to work with suppliers so that we can improve access to medicinal cannabis for the many thousands of Australians who need it. This bill today is just one small part of the huge web of legislative changes needed to improve access to medicinal cannabis.

With brave community advocates and many parliamentary colleagues, I've been fighting for a long time for improved access to safe, reliable, legal and affordable medicinal cannabis. There is no doubt that cannabis has brought relief to and a dramatic reduction in pain and suffering for so many Australians. In my home state of Tasmania I have personally met with many individuals who have seen their lives and the lives of their loved ones turned around through this treatment.

Sadly, though, there are just as many heartbreaking stories of those who continue to suffer because they are unable to gain access to this treatment. There are many others who are still branded as criminals under Australian law for accessing and using this treatment, despite the incredible and proven health outcomes to them and their loved ones. For too long Australians have been forced to navigate underground criminal networks in order to secure a medication that we know works, because it works for them; they demonstrate it.

There is no doubt in my mind that change is desperately overdue. I would like to formally acknowledge all the brave Tasmanians who have had the courage to go public with their own stories, despite potential personal risks, in order to mount the case for reform. Some of these people are elderly; they look after their children. Some of them are very young. They are very nervous about the prospects of what dealing with an illegal substance may mean for them, but they cut through that, because it means to them that they can provide the help for their loved ones in suffering.

Last year, I spoke in this place about Natalie, about Lyn and Jeremy, about Nicole and Alice, and about Jessie and April, in the debate on the Narcotic Drugs Amendment Bill 2016. Tragically, Natalie Daley, a young mum with three children, lost her battle with cancer mid-year last year. Natalie was from my home town of Ulverstone. She was a pioneering advocate for medicinal cannabis, and her resilience was an inspiration to so many people. Despite the risks, Natalie went public with her very, very personal experience of the incredible change that medicinal cannabis made to her life after she was diagnosed with a very rare form of cancer.

Another Natalie, who is still fighting, is Natalie Vassallo from Burnie. I have known Natalie for some time. Earlier this year, at a forum in Burnie, we had a lengthy chat about her current situation, and she penned a powerful, logical email to me detailing her experience with medicinal cannabis and the Tasmanian health system and about her strong will to keep fighting to live so she could see her boys grow up. Natalie has spent time educating her GP on whole-plant medicinal cannabis therapy. Natalie said to me that she's one of the lucky ones: she is lucky enough to have a reasonable GP who is willing to listen but also to do his own research. But, under the Tasmanian government's scheme for accessing medicinal cannabis, only a specialist can make prescriptions, and Natalie, unfortunately, rarely gets to see her lung specialist. Her first appointment is scheduled for November this year. But she doesn't know if he'll have the time, or the interest, to help her apply for the state government's prescribed access scheme. Natalie says that her lung function improvements under medicinal cannabis have been nothing but remarkable. When she wrote the email to me in August, she was off all pain medications after using cannabis oil over the past two years, and she says that cannabis oil is the reason she's still here for her three boys, one of whom is still in school, while an older boy is her carer. The main issue is of course supply. The lack of pathways to access cannabis oil is a story told countless times to me and to all of us in this place, and it is the absolute core of this debate here today. Thank you, Natalie, for sharing your story, and thank you to your GP for listening but also for having the willingness to learn. And thank you to your boys for their support of each other but also of you. Every change that we can make in this place and in the Tasmanian parliament to empower our GPs and improve access is a step in the right direction.

I also want to commend Andrew Irving from Tasmania for his enduring leadership of Medicinal Cannabis and Hemp Tasmania. Andrew had been a full-time carer to his wife, Marilyn, until she, sadly, passed away earlier this year. Marilyn had a neurodegenerative condition and used medicinal cannabis. When she passed away, Andrew's resolve was to educate our community on medicinal cannabis and advocate for patients' rights, and he wanted to continue that legacy. Andrew publishes a regular newsletter called The Leaf, for Medicinal Cannabis and Hemp Tasmania members, and last year successfully crowdfunded for thousands of dollars and provided many hours of his own labour and other people's to create two educational trailers for the state. The trailers are packed full of information that can educate people and dispel the myths surrounding medicinal cannabis.

The trailers have been a huge success. They have been such a success, in fact, that Andrew is now building a third one, ready to go to the mainland. I was at the launch in Ulverstone last year for the trailer that was dedicated to Natalie Daley, and I know that Senator Brown, who is here in the chamber, was also at the launch in Hobart. That demonstrates Labor's commitment, right across the state, from the north to the south.

Also in Tasmania, we have had absolutely tremendous advocacy from our Tasmanian Labor politicians. That advocacy has been led by our former Premier Lara Giddings. While both the Labor and Liberal parties are supportive of improving access to medicinal cannabis, just like here in Canberra, the Liberal Party is overly cautious in its approach. It is leaving people to suffer, leaving people in fear of prosecution and creating uncertainty at a time when all we need to do is make access simpler. Under the Tasmanian Liberal government, specialists can apply to the health department to prescribe the drug, but the government can't say how long it will take to access medicinal cannabis. Labor's position is that doctors should be able to prescribe it, to make the drug more accessible. It has taken the Liberal government 3½ years to come up with a system that is simply too slow and doesn't facilitate safe and prompt access.

I've just told this place about Natalie's delays in accessing her specialist. I said her appointment is in November, but she doesn't actually have a date yet. All she has is: 'It's November.' As I said, she's concerned that the specialist won't have the time to help her apply through the state government's scheme. An ABC story from 5 October reported that in the first month of operation the Tasmanian government's Controlled Access Scheme received only three applications from medical specialists, with none having been approved at the time of writing. The health department has no timeline on a decision regarding pending applications.

While the Tasmanian Liberal government is off being overly cautious, GPs are confused with how the scheme works. Dr Bastian Seidel from the college of GPs said in the 5 October story that it is difficult for GPs to refer to the appropriate organisation or hospital specialist. He went on to say that states each have their own scheme and that patients who might benefit from medicinal cannabis can't get it, while GPs who want to prescribe it are not able to. Meanwhile, hundreds of Tasmanians are using medicinal cannabis every day. As I said earlier, they are risking prosecution. They don't have an easy, or good, supply chain—the quality quite often is questionable. They're suffering. I really hope that the government will hear the pleas not only in the stories I've shared today but in the stories I'm sure they've heard, as well as from the many others who are constant in their strong advocacy for improved access. What we need is support for this sensible legislation and movement to improving access for Australians who need it.

I thank Senator Di Natale for introducing this bill and for his longstanding commitment to working across the parliament—with me and other members of the Labor Party and with members of the coalition—to improve access to medicinal cannabis for people in Australia. In the last parliament, medicinal cannabis access was a great story of people coming together from across the political spectrum to do the right thing for those people in our community who are suffering, for those people who are helped in some way by medicinal cannabis. I remind the Senate that passage of this bill won't allow free access for all. To access products under category A a patient must be terminally ill. The heavy handed, cruel approach by the Minister for Health is undermining patient safety, it's undermining collaboration between the federal and state governments and it's miring GPs and patients in hours and hours of unnecessary red tape. Minister, please respect the will of the Senate, acknowledge the skills and expertise of our medical fraternity and move urgently to improve access for people who need our help.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak in support of the Medicinal Cannabis Legislation Amendment (Securing Patient Access) Bill 2017. It is a great pleasure for me to follow Senator Urquhart in this debate, because Senator Urquhart has been, not only in our home state of Tasmania but also here in the parliament, a tireless advocate for improving access to medicinal cannabis. I echo my support for Senator Urquhart's contribution here today.

There will be many people watching and listening to the Senate this morning to see how this chamber votes on this bill. Included amongst those people listening will be Andrew Irving. As Senator Urquhart mentioned in her contribution, Andrew Irving and his wife, Marilyn, were key drivers in the creation of medicinal cannabis education trailers. They built and launched two. Senator Urquhart and I were at the launch of one of them up on the north-west coast. Indeed, that trailer was dedicated to Natalie Daley, who unfortunately passed away.

Andrew Irving has been a tireless advocate in producing educational information and ensuring that information is provided to not only those people who require medicinal cannabis but members of the community across the board to raise awareness about what we're talking about when we talk about medicinal cannabis. As Senator Urquhart indicated, we lost Marilyn earlier this year, but that hasn't stopped Andrew's drive to ensure that Tasmanians are informed about the benefits of medicinal cannabis and to engage Tasmanians to support the use of medicinal cannabis. I take this opportunity to commend and congratulate him on the work that he is doing.

Labor supports the changes proposed in this bill, which will improve access to medicinal cannabis for terminally ill patients. I again echo Senator Urquhart's comments where she congratulated Senator Di Natale on bringing this bill to the chamber.

Earlier this year we saw—and Labor supported—the disallowance motion, which the Senate passed, that allows patients to access imported medicinal cannabis products under category A of the Special Access Scheme. In one of those rather rare occurrences in this chamber, Labor, the Greens, One Nation, Senator Lambie, Senator Hinch, Senator Gichuhi and Senator Leyonhjelm were united in voting to disallow the government's restrictions. Only the Nick Xenophon Team and Senator Bernardi supported the government. As we've already heard in the previous contribution by Senator Kakoschke-Moore, the Nick Xenophon Team will be supporting this bill, so that is indeed very good news.

This bill will uphold the Senate's intent by amending the Customs Act 1901 to clarify that a licence permission, consent or approval to import medicinal cannabis applies to category A as well as other pathways. The Therapeutic Goods Administration states that category A is strictly limited to:

… patients who are seriously ill with a condition from which death is reasonably likely to occur within a matter of months, or from which premature death is reasonably likely to occur in the absence of early treatment.

We need to be clear in this debate that this is what we're talking about: we're talking, unfortunately, about Australians who are dying. We should also be clear that under category A of the Special Access Scheme only a doctor will be able to prescribe medicinal cannabis. What this bill and the debate in this chamber are about is whether dying patients who have a legitimate clinical need for medicinal cannabis should have access to it. Labor believes they should, and that is why Labor will be supporting this bill.

This bill will go some way in ensuring there is a legal and regulated market so that family members and carers aren't forced to rely on the black market to relieve the pain of their loved ones in their final stages of life. This is a complex issue, which Labor acknowledged in this chamber back in June when the Senate voted to improve access to medicinal cannabis for dying Australians. On balance, Labor is proud to stand up for the rights of terminally ill Australians who are in need of medicinal cannabis. The fact is that some terminally ill Australians cannot find relief from pain within existing therapeutic goods. Patients who are suffering from a terminal illness should have access to safe, reliable and legal medicinal cannabis if it is prescribed by their doctor.

I have been fortunate to meet with people who have been suffering unbearable pain and to see firsthand the benefits of medicinal cannabis. Sadly, not all Australians who need medicinal cannabis have access to it. That must change. This chamber's vote in June should have resolved this issue. Terminally ill patients should've had easier access by now to a prescribed therapy that can ease their suffering. Unfortunately, in the months since June the government has continued to deny the parliament's will and much-needed relief to dying Australians. Straight after the vote, we saw the health minister equate dying Australians and their families with drug smugglers. The health minister said the disallowance was—and I quote from the Fairfax newspapers—'reckless and irresponsible'. He said it would put lives at risk and potentially make it easier for criminals to get drugs.

Mr Turnbull should be ashamed of the way his government has tried to scaremonger on this issue, stigmatising dying people who are trying to access medicinal cannabis. Even worse, the government has put in place a new barrier to prevent people from accessing cannabis. In June, soon after the disallowance vote, the government wrote to medicinal cannabis importers instructing them not to supply products to anyone holding a prescription under category A of the Special Access Scheme. Instead of helping Australians with terminal illness and their families, Mr Turnbull's priority has been to find a way to get around the Senate's decision to give dying Australians access to the pain relief they need.

The bill before us today, the Medicinal Cannabis Legislation Amendment (Securing Patient Access) Bill, will enshrine the intent of our disallowance vote in legislation. Because the government hasn't respected the parliament's will, this bill will amend the Customs Act 1901 to clarify that a licence, permission, consent or approval to import medicinal cannabis applies to category A as well as other pathways. Secondly, the bill seeks to ensure that terminally ill patients can access domestic medicinal cannabis products under category A when they become available. The bill will also amend the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 to add category A as one of the purposes for which the secretary of health can grant a licence to manufacture medicinal cannabis in Australia.

Ultimately, in Labor's view, medicinal cannabis should be treated in the same way as medicines: products will be accessed for safety and efficacy by the TGA and, where they pass the test, they will be prescribed by doctors, dispensed by pharmacists and, possibly one day, subsidised by the PBS. Labor understands that medicinal cannabis can ease suffering for Australians who are dying. That is why Labor led the way and introduced legislation for a national medicinal cannabis scheme in 2015 and supported the government's legislation when it was finally introduced in 2016. It's a terrible shame that we have a government that remains sceptical of medicinal cannabis and has been much too slow to implement the national scheme.

The government has also failed to drive consistency across the states on the legal treatment of people currently accessing medicinal cannabis. Mr Shorten has written to Mr Turnbull three times urging action and offering support. But patients have seen no change. That is another reason why Labor is supporting the bill that is before us, because the government has failed time and time again to improve other pathways. Passage of this bill will be a step in the right direction. However, it will not be the end of the matter. I would like to see, and Labor is committed to, ensuring safe and timely access to medicinal cannabis is made available across Australia where it is appropriate to do so.

Unlike this government, Labor is committed to making sure those who are terminally ill have the access to treatment options they need and deserve. That is why we'll be supporting this bill. And I hope, when this bill is passed today, that the government will do the right thing and we can see this bill passed in the House of Representatives.

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a disgrace. This is an absolute disgrace what the government is doing here. I agree with Senator Brown when she quotes Mr Hunt in the Sydney Morning Herald saying it was reckless and irresponsible. It's not the people who brought this bill to the House that are irresponsible; it's the Minister for Health and the government. I don't give a damn we are seeing that they are thwarting the will of the Senate. I don't care they're thwarting the will of the Senate. They are thwarting the will and the rights of sick people in Australia. They are thwarting the will of sick people.

Before I jumped the shark and came here to the Senate, I worked for Saturday Night and did a lot of stories about medical cannabis. And I have talked to mothers of little kids who have had hundreds of thousands of convulsions that were cured by the efficacy of medical cannabis. I have been to Nimbin, to the Mardi Gras for the last two years for this very issue, to talk at a conference on medical cannabis, why it should be allowed and why it should be easily imported. I talked to man who had a brain tumour, and what keeps him peaceful, what keeps him out of pain is medical cannabis. And what is wrong with that? Everything else was not working for him. A mother brought her baby to Nimbin to see us and said, 'Here he is and now he's well.'

For the government now to do the shameful thing, to thwart the use of it, is a disgusting thing. If down the track, as Senator Di Natale says, we build up an Australian industry of medicinal cannabis, I'll be the first person to join the government in saying, 'We stopped the imports; we are building the Australian industry up.' I would love to see Norfolk Island become the producer of medicinal cannabis the same way we have morphine coming from poppies in Tasmania. That would be fantastic if we could do that and I would support the government to say, 'Okay, now we have got a business running here.' As Senator Hanson said, we want to build up the local industry, and I'd go along with that.

But, right now, the government has callously, methodically and indecently blocked the will of the Senate, blocked the will of the people, blocked terminally ill people and people in pain from getting access to something that eases their pain, makes their life better, makes their life bearable, and I think the government and the health minister should be ashamed of themselves. They ambushed some crossbenchers the last time around. They ambushed the Xenophon Team when we got this letter from the health minister suddenly tabled by Senator McGrath at the last minute. I don't want to see that happen again. What has to happen today is we must pass this. You must make it right, make it work for the last time, so that families of terminally ill people, mothers of kids with fits can get access to a health product that works, that is proven to work. That should happen in this country as we speak.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One Nation will be supporting Senator Di Natale's bill and supporting the thousands of the Australians who have called for the change of attitude and, more importantly, the change in legislation that allows those people under category A facing terminal illness, imminent death, access to this miracle drug. One Nation federally and our Queensland state leader, Steve Dickson, have worked tirelessly to decriminalise this medicinal cannabis. I will say it again: this is a miracle drug, and this monumental change will be remembered long into the future.

I cannot understand why the government is so against fighting for this and is against this change. It is important that we do it, and this is why we support it. It's known that a lot of Australians want this and want to see this drug used. I have spoken to a patient who came back from America and who had the use of medicinal cannabis there. She had a brain tumour. After using it, there was clearly a shrinking of the tumour. Yet she got no help in Australia. Under this bill, licensed importers will be permitted to import and supply to category A patients. We are now on the precipice of real change in the way that category A patients can access much-needed pain relief.

I know a young lady by the name of Caitlin who suffers from 19 medical conditions, including cerebral palsy, epilepsy, chronic lung disease, obstructive sleep apnoea and hyperventilation and autoimmune disease, to mention just a few. She is just nine years old. Her mother is forced to produce illegal medical cannabis oil to keep her daughter alive; failing to give her the six daily doses would lead to endless seizures and permanent hospitalisation, with her connected to oxygen.

What we are doing here today will lift the legal hurdles and, if you like, stop making criminals out of caring mums and dads, family members and a raft of people in our community who are simply trying to ease the suffering of loved ones during their final months of life. Who are we to deny these people that choice? The denial, I hope, will stop today.

I welcome the future of Queensland company Medifarm in bringing proven genetic plant strains, extraction and manufacturing processes to Australia from their Israeli partners, who have over 20 years experience in producing medical cannabis oils that work. In a recent survey of over 1,540 responsibilities, 95 per cent of Australians from all states and territories supported the use of medical cannabis oil. Of that 95 per cent, 75 per cent of respondents called for whole-plant medical cannabis oil, not synthetic pharmaceutical rip-offs.

Our next step is to lift the numbers of doctors throughout the country willing to prescribe medical cannabis oil. It's not good enough that my own home state of Queensland has just 20 doctors registered to prescribe the drug. Worse still, current legislation prevents the medical board from revealing those registered GPs' names. This is just another barrier between the patient and true care. I can hear the frustration from my constituents in Queensland from here in Canberra. My Queensland state leader, Steve Dickson, and future elected Queensland One Nation members of parliament will do everything in their power to broaden those GP numbers and to make their names accessible. In the meantime, my One Nation colleagues and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question now be put.

Question agreed to.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the bill be read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.