Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the coalition, I am pleased to rise to state the coalition's position relating to the Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Amendment Bill 2022. I'm pleased to say at the outset that the coalition will be supporting this bill. The Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Amendment Bill amends the Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Act 2016 to support the Commonwealth's effective recovery of the costs associated with regulating Australia's medical cannabis industry, including the costs of administration and monitoring and assessment of compliance, and to provide greater flexibility for regulations to prescribe the charges imposed on licence holders under the Narcotics Drugs Act 1967.

The Narcotics Drugs Act was amended in 2021 when the coalition was in government to simplify the medicinal cannabis licensing framework by implementing a single licence structure to replace the original three-licence structure that existed under the act. This bill revises the existing licence fees and charges to better align them with the new licence framework that was introduced.

An independent review of the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 was commissioned by the coalition and undertaken by Professor John McMillan AO in the year 2019. It's known as the McMillan review. That review resulted in 26 recommendations to amend and improve the medicinal cannabis licensing and permits framework in Australia. The coalition in government agreed in principle to adopt all 26 recommendations of the McMillan review. This included recommendations to introduce a single licence model for medicinal cannabis regulation, replacing the previous three-licence model to simplify the related permits regime. Amendments under the coalition government to the narcotics drugs legislation regime commenced on 24 December, Christmas Eve, of the year 2021 to implement recommendations from the McMillan review.

As a result of the introduction of the simplified licence structure, changes to the fees and charges framework are now necessary to align it with this new structure. As I have already stated, the coalition supports this bill. These changes were flagged by the McMillan review, which stated that the simplified licence structure meant the scale of fees and charges would need to be tailored to the range of activities encompassed by a particular application and licence. The activities relating to the administration of medicinal cannabis regulatory schemes are funded through cost-recovery arrangements which are consistent with the Australian government's charging framework.

It is important to have a consistent policy when it comes to safeguards around medicines and the role of regulation. We do know that in the past there have been votes in this place where safeguards were proposed to be removed. They are worrying signs, and it is something we need to guard against. The PBS is vital to our country and deferrals of listings are something that we should seek to avoid. A healthy functioning economy paves the way, as we know, to list more medicines on the PBS.

We have already seen the ending of free rapid antigen tests for concession cardholders and the delayed backflip on the cutting of pandemic leave disaster payments. The impact of the removal of services, such as telehealth consultations, and issues relating to cost-of-living pressures are something that we need to be vigilant of. As the opposition, we'll remain vigilant on these issues and ensure that these services continue to be provided and made available for Australians. I commend the bill to the Senate.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Amendment Bill 2022 on behalf of the Greens, and I indicate from the outset that we don't oppose it. The bill makes relatively minor changes, largely creating a regulation-making power to allow for matters that will be the subject of multiple separate charges for licensing. The intent of the bill is to provide greater flexibility for licensing charges for medicinal cannabis, and, ultimately, the hope is to enable a simpler method for working out the amount of charges prescribed in the industry. This applies to medicinal cannabis and the licensing and permit schemes that exist under this narcotic drugs act.

We acknowledge the comprehensive evidence that medicinal cannabis can be absolutely life saving. In my state of New South Wales, I've spoken to family after family who have had their loved ones' lives turned around by the effect of medicinal cannabis. In some cases, they've broken down in tears and described to me how their child had been having convulsive seizures that no traditional medicine could treat, but then medicinal cannabis had actually ended those seizures and turned their child's life around. The hope and the extraordinary benefits that can be achieved in cases like that are genuinely inspiring.

When we reviewed this bill, we wanted to make sure that it did no harm to that industry and allowed for medicinal cannabis to continue to be available. We all know that the cost of medicinal cannabis in this country is far too high, and, in fact, in many cases, families that would benefit from prescription cannabis are actually accessing it from the nonlegal market because of the extremely high costs and frequent delay in paperwork associated with obtaining cannabis in the legal market. They're doing it because it's the only way they can afford the medicine to help their loved ones—their kids and their families. That should not be the case. We received a promise from the government that this change in the regulation-making power will not see any net increase in the licensing charges for medicinal cannabis. We will, of course, be keeping an eye on those changes to ensure that that doesn't happen.

Let's be clear: medicinal cannabis can have extraordinarily positive impacts. As we know, it's most commonly prescribed for pain and has an extraordinarily positive impact for many people who are consuming it. I have experience speaking with a number of people—some very close friends—who have had otherwise untreatable pain. That untreatable pain can happen through injury, or it can happen through illnesses such as cancer. They have told me that their only way of addressing that incredible and otherwise untreatable pain has been to access medicinal cannabis. It has provided essential relief at a time when all other medications have failed. We cannot make it harder to get medicinal cannabis.

One of the reasons why I'm aware of the excessive cost of medicinal cannabis is that it is repeatedly communicated to my office through the Sniff Off Facebook page that we run. Sniff Off's primary purpose is to identify where police searches are happening using drug dogs in our public streets—which, of course, is an affront to civil liberties. But it creates a community where people feel free to talk about the impacts of our failing war on drugs. One of the issues that's repeatedly raised is just the sheer, bloody cost of medicinal cannabis, which is making people go and obtain the same product from the black market. We have to make sure that these licensing arrangements don't make it even harder to get medicinal cannabis.

According to the Victorian government, the cost of getting access to medicinal cannabis in that state can vary between $50 to $1,000 per patient per week. That depends upon the nature of the condition being treated and the particular product required, as well as the dose. But it's hard to imagine how any ordinary family could afford $1,000 a week, or could afford even a couple of hundred dollars a week, or should be forced to pay anything like that for medication that can be essential to their wellbeing. It may be the only way of treating their pain, the only way of treating their kids' seizures. It's just plain wrong. The Greens are on record for saying that medicinal cannabis, for that reason, should be put onto the PBS. If a doctor prescribes it, if it can be life saving or if it's the only available treatment, of course it should be covered by the PBS. We shouldn't see families having to pay that kind of cost for access to medicinal cannabis. The cost of the medicinal cannabis comes on top of going to your local GP, sometimes repeatedly and often not bulk billed, to get the prescriptions for medicinal cannabis.

We do know that cannabis can provide extraordinary benefits. We also know that our current approach to cannabis—of making it an illegal drug—is creating all of these distortions in the market. The answer to those problems doesn't lie in this bill; the answer to those problems lies in actually legalising cannabis for recreational and medicinal purposes in this country. That's the answer. We need to do that sooner rather than later.

The good news is that this place will have a chance to vote on that next year, when we bring forward a proposal to finally legalise cannabis in this country. I do want to foreshadow that, on behalf of the Greens, we have circulated an amendment to the second reading which would add the following notation on behalf of the Senate:

(I) in 2020 the Community Affairs References Committee, as part of its inquiry into the current barriers to patient access to medicinal cannabis in Australia, concluded that 'the significant costs associated with accessing medicinal cannabis legally are causing a large number of Australians to purchase or grow illicit cannabis for self-medication', and

I pause to respect the work of that committee. That committee's work, after hearing the evidence, acknowledged and accepted the evidence that we hear repeatedly about the high costs of medicinal cannabis. The second reading amendment would also provide:

…   …   …

(ii) the committee recommended that the Government encourage a review of state and territory criminal legislation in relation to amnesties for the possession and/or cultivation of cannabis for genuine personal medicinal use; and

(b) calls on the Government to work with state and territory governments to develop a nationwide amnesty from criminal prosecution for people who have a legitimate medicinal cannabis prescription and are home growing cannabis for their personal use".

Therefore, I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that:

(I) in 2020 the Community Affairs References Committee, as part of its inquiry into the current barriers to patient access to medicinal cannabis in Australia, concluded that 'the significant costs associated with accessing medicinal cannabis legally are causing a large number of Australians to purchase or grow illicit cannabis for self-medication', and

(ii) the committee recommended that the Government encourage a review of state and territory criminal legislation in relation to amnesties for the possession and/or cultivation of cannabis for genuine personal medicinal use; and

(b) calls on the Government to work with state and territory governments to develop a nationwide amnesty from criminal prosecution for people who have a legitimate medicinal cannabis prescription and are home growing cannabis for their personal use".

I commend that second reading amendment to the chamber.

Just to be clear, they don't take it as far as the Greens think we should go, which is to fully legalise cannabis. Let's have that debate next year, let's do it thoroughly and let's do it properly with all the evidence in front of us. But what these second reading amendments say is this: if you need to access medicinal cannabis for your health, and you've got a prescription for it, but you can't afford it and you're therefore forced to get cannabis on the black market, you should not face criminal prosecution for that. You should not face criminal prosecution for getting the drug your doctor says you need in the only way you can afford it. That's why we press those second reading amendments.

But I otherwise indicate that we're not opposing the bill, primarily for the reason that the government has given us that assurance that there will be no net increase. I'd like to hear that confirmed on the record by the government in their response—that there will be no net increase in those licensing fees for medicinal cannabis.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make some brief remarks about the Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Amendment Bill 2022. As a member of this chamber, I have not sought to engage too widely on these matters because I have largely seen them as matters that have been the preserve of the states. I note Senator Shoebridge has a proposal here which is based on advice from the Senate, and I look forward to engaging in that process next year. But it certainly has not been something that I have sought to focus on in the limited time I have had in the Senate.

What I would say is that I believe the intention of the former health minister, Greg Hunt, was to make it easier for people to get access to medicinal cannabis, to lower the regulatory burden and to reduce costs and complexity so that access is there for people. I note that these are sensitive issues, but I think there is a strong body of medical evidence that there are cases when the only relief available to people for extreme pain is going to be medicinal cannabis. I think we have a problem if people cannot get access to that particular drug when they need it.

The object of this bill is to build on the changes that were commissioned by the former coalition government to ensure that licence fees and charges are better aligned with the new licensing framework. We accepted all the recommendations of the McMillan review on these matters. This is another down payment on that front. The guiding principle here is that we want people to get access to medicinal cannabis. That is the key point. We don't want people to be pushed into the black market. We want people to be able to access it through an above-the-counter type of approach as much as possible. That will be the test for this bill. We will be supporting it and the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. No doubt we will have further opportunities to debate these matters. I again note my understanding, which could be flawed—we do make mistakes from time to time—that most of these matters in relation to the regulation of these particular arrangements are largely the preserve of the states. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to make some brief remarks this morning.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I thank senators for their contribution to the debate on the Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Amendment Bill 2022. The bill amends the Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Act to clarify that the narcotics drugs licence charges regulation may prescribe matters that will be the subject of multiple separate charges which may be incurred by a licence holder during a particular charging period and to enable a simpler method for working out the amount of charge prescribed. The amendments in the bill are intended to provide sufficient flexibility for the regulations to appropriately prescribe charges supporting the effective recovery of the costs associated with administering the Narcotic Drugs Act. I thank members for their contributions to the debate on this bill.

(Quorum formed)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Shoebridge to the Narcotic Drugs (Licence Changes) Amendment Bill 2022 be agreed to.

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

I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that many Australians are unable to access medical cannabis owing to the bureaucratic framework in place, and the cost to patients; and

(b) calls on the Government:

(i) to make natural, whole plant, Australian medical cannabis available to any Australian with a medical need, by doctor's prescription, filled by a pharmacist on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; and

(ii) to ensure that the decision to prescribe medical cannabis is a matter between only the doctor and the patient, which is subject to real time prescription monitoring in the same way as other controlled medicines".

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Roberts be agreed to.