Joint Committee on the Legalisation of Medicinal Cannabis

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (11:03): I move:

That the interim report of the committee be noted.

The history of this particular committee will see the Hon. Tammy Franks, in the other place, move to set up an inquiry into the use of medicinal cannabis. The inquiry's terms of reference were couched in fairly general terms and it has been to date a very comprehensive inquiry. The report here to be noted is an interim report. The body of work that the committee needs to do has not concluded; it will conclude next year. Indeed, the additional body of work has more of a focus on the industry, the production of cannabis and the economic opportunities that might arise as a state.

The witnesses who were called for this first part of the inquiry were incredibly comprehensive: obviously, the police and medical practitioners; a whole raft of scientists; people involved in the whole area of traffic accidents; interstate people, where there had been some legislative changes; and a whole host of others, especially some of the people who use medicinal cannabis and find it very useful. The work of the committee ended up focusing on a number of particular areas. They were core areas. One was the use of medicinal cannabis which has been prescribed by a general practitioner, the use of medicinal cannabis when it comes to the legislation surrounding offences in relation to driving. That was one of the big issues.

The core argument is that there is a whole bunch of medication—opiates amongst them, but other heavy-duty medication as well—that is prescribed, and people drive and go to work and it is not an offence. When it comes to medicinal cannabis we have decided in this place—and other places throughout the country and indeed at a federal level—and we now acknowledge that it has efficacy in a number of areas. It could be pain management, insomnia or some particular types of epilepsy, but there is a range of other conditions as well where medicinal cannabis has a useful role to play.

The issue for the users is that if they drive a car with any THC content in their blood they are guilty of an offence. That is something that looks incredibly arbitrary. Here we have a whole range of medicinal products that are clearly stronger in their effect than the use of medicinal cannabis, and yet that is all okay. When it comes to medicinal cannabis, it is not okay.

As a country member, I have a particular interest in this because some people I have spoken to in the country can no longer drive. They can no longer get to work, given the distances that they have to drive. I do not have to tell the member for Narungga about the paucity of public transport and the lack of linkages when it comes to public transport or even private operators in country areas. I would argue that country people, when it comes to the use of medicinal cannabis, are especially being discriminated against. I have met with people who have lost their jobs as a result of the legislation as it currently stands.

The committee did have that real focus on this particular aspect of medicinal cannabis. Indeed, the recommendations that the committee came up with when it comes to the Road Traffic Act 1961 were to provide that it will not be an offence to drive whilst THC is present in oral fluid or blood where a person (1) has been prescribed a medicinal cannabis product containing THC, (2) is using the product in accordance with the prescription, (3) has a zero blood alcohol concentration, and (4) is not impaired.

It is one of the things about the use of cannabis, and I am incredibly up-front: in my younger years, I would have the occasional toke, and I am sure there is a whole bunch of people in this parliament who would have done likewise. We have seen some people use heavier duty stuff of late, but I will not go there—I will not go there.

The thing about the use of cannabis is the whole issue about impairment. THC is present in a number of ways that can be measured. It is present days and sometimes weeks after the use of cannabis, yet there is absolutely no impairment whatsoever, but it does not matter. It is still an offence, so that whole issue about impairment is an important one. What we are seeking to do with a further recommendation—and I should add that this is a recommendation, and obviously it is up to the parliament what ultimately happens—is for the minister to undertake a community consultation process in respect of the draft amendments inviting further commentary than was considered by the committee. Like I said, the committee's deliberations were very comprehensive.

That was out of this part, and I will come to the industrial use of cannabis in a minute. This was the core recommendation. We noted that some other jurisdictions had already moved in that direction and, in fact, had moved a long time ago. When you look at Tasmania, I am not aware of any additional influx or increase in accidents in Tasmania. They have had these changes in place now for quite a number of years. I think the ACT has gone down this track. Just a few weeks ago, an interim measure was adopted in Victoria to give magistrates the discretion, taking into account all of the factors. In Victoria they are looking down the track to longer term changes based upon some scientific work that is being done at the moment.

As I said, at the moment there is a whole raft of far more serious medication that is being used by people who are driving, who are at work, that cannabis potentially could substitute for. Indeed, there is some research coming out of the United States, because a whole bunch of different jurisdictions have different approaches in the United States. In some states there is full legalisation; in others it is medicinal cannabis.

It is interesting, looking at some of those states and the changes that were introduced and those baseline measures, to look at accident rates beforehand. In some of the states where it is not an offence to use medicinal cannabis, the accident rate came down. The argument that was put was that it came down because people substituted cannabis for heavier medication. We know that the United States have a major opiate and a number of other drug issues, but this actually helped when it came to road accidents. So we do need to seriously look at this, and there is this consultation element that we are recommending to government to initiate.

Another important element is that we spoke to unions, to people who have been using cannabis at work, and quite rightly there is drug testing at work. I was around when they introduced drug testing at work. I used to work at the steelworks, and it was interesting what happened in communities like Whyalla, exposed to heavy industry. It is where heavy industry and mining were occurring that a lot of the early drug testing was introduced, for very understandable reasons.

One of the issues is that in probably all of those communities, we saw a shift from the use of just cannabis in general to heavier duty drugs. It was the start of the greater use of amphetamine related drugs, and it was an unintended consequence of the introduction of drug testing frameworks in heavy industry. This scourge has been with us because we have progressed to meth now, and the impact has been far more serious. These are far more serious drugs than the use of someone having a toke on the weekend, which will be in their system for days and days.

So we need to look at the industrial aspect as well. The recommendations are essentially the same. When it comes to the framework in relation to driving and these various conditions are met, it no longer becomes an offence. It should be likewise in heavy industry. But once again, this is about medicinal cannabis, this is about a drug that has been prescribed. It is an important issue. The consequences for the current breaches for people can be incredibly serious.

People have lost their capacity to work. There are people who have lost their houses. Relations have broken down because of this very arbitrary approach to what drugs you can use when you are driving and what drugs you can use when you are working in heavy industry especially. If there is a prescription, if a number of other conditions are met, it is time that we seriously looked at introducing sensible amendments when it comes to the use of medicinal cannabis.

Motion carried.