HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2024-09-25 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

Parliamentary Committees

Joint Committee on the Legalisation of Medicinal Cannabis

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (11:05): I move:

That the interim report of the committee be noted.

It gives me great pleasure today to table and speak to the interim report of the Joint Committee on the Legalisation of Medicinal Cannabis. Members in this place would be well aware that for a very long period of time in this place I have championed the legalisation of medicinal cannabis (which I was pleased to see happen at a federal level), the legalisation of industrial hemp, which contains very little THC, for industrial purposes, and the legalisation of cannabis.

However, the report I speak to today is that of a committee that is, of course, not just comprised of a Greens member of parliament, although I am very pleased to chair it. I thank the members of that committee for their support working on this very important issue of addressing the challenges we continue to face where a previously prohibited substance has now been legalised and approved for use in a medicinal capacity. There still remain big shortfalls in our laws, policies and procedures.

I particularly want to thank the members of the committee, and note that the committee has been populated in this place by the Hon. Ben Hood and the Hon. Justin Hanson—so from this particular chamber we have a Labor, a Liberal and a Green. In the other place we have had two Independents; initially the member for Mount Gambier, now replaced by the member for Narungga, Mr Fraser Ellis MP, as well as Mr Eddie Hughes, the member for Giles, and the Hon. David Pisoni, the member for Unley—so from that place we have an Independent, a Labor and a Liberal.

This is a committee comprised of quite a good cross-section of the parliament, including regional, rural and metropolitan, with most of the parties in this place represented, although I do note not all. It has made for very good debate, and I draw not just members' of this council's attention but I will also draw minister's attention to the issues we have raised for further consideration.

In the interim report by this joint committee there have been 13 recommendations called for. Those recommendations are not necessarily ones that the Greens would progress in and of themselves, but in many ways they are a sensible compromise arrived at through thorough deliberation, evidence and debate within that very diverse committee.

The first of the recommendations is possibly the one that will attract most media interest. Recommendation 1 calls for the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport to prepare draft amendments to the Road Traffic Act to provide that it will not be an offence to drive with THC present in oral fluid or blood where drivers:

(1) have been prescribed medicinal cannabis products containing THC in accordance with the Controlled Substances Act or a corresponding act of another state or territory;

(2) are using the medication in accordance with a prescription;

(3) have zero blood alcohol concentration; and

(4) are not impaired.

Further, part B of that recommendation is that the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport undertake community consultation in respect of the amendments proposed above.

Members of this council will remember that I previously had a private members' bill before this place. Indeed, former member the Hon. Kelly Vincent moved similar amendments. Currently, we have a bill before this place under the auspices of One Nation and the Hon. Sarah Game that goes some way to addressing this question of how we can have patients continue to be criminalised taking a lawful legal drug as per their prescription from their medical professional and yet still be criminalised, not for any impairment, not for any real reasons of road safety concern, but simply for having the presence of THC in their system.

The police in this state have roadside drug testing. That regime does not test for levels of THC, it simply tests for simple presence. It is either there or it is not, and yet SAPOL themselves in their advertising say, 'We will catch you long after the high is gone,' and that is because THC stays in your system for a very long time, well after its psychoactive effects have been felt and experienced and, certainly from the evidence we heard from experts across the medical profession and the legal profession, well after any danger is there to either patient or public of that THC being in that driver's system.

We think this is an issue that has been managed quite well in Tasmania where, just by chance and the circumstances of their laws, drivers in that state already have this defence. Since the legalisation of medicinal cannabis, their roads have not seen unprecedented levels of dangers and crashes, and they have not had any heightened road safety risk from patients with a prescription medication using that medication in an appropriate way but also appropriately driving when they are able to.

In this state, because cannabis remains a prohibited substance, and THC in particular rather than CBD remains a prohibited substance, we have a road system based not on real road safety but on the criminalisation of that THC. This simply does not add up if we want to treat patients as patients and not as criminals. These people are not criminals and we should not be criminalising them.

We do think, however, as a committee that this is not a job for the Greens, it is not a job for One Nation and it is not a job for people like Dignity MLC the Hon Kelly Vincent to take up; it is a job for the government of the day with all of the tools that they have at their disposal to do the proper consultation to weed through—not to make a pun, but I am sure there will be a few more; I did not mean to make that one, I do apologise—fact from fiction.

It is a job for the government to look at Tasmania, to look at jurisdictions around the world where their laws and their history of prohibition has not unduly and unjustly continued to criminalise patients who simply wish to be able to operate a vehicle in a safe manner so that they can go about their lives, so that they can keep their jobs and, particularly if they are a rural or regional patient, so they can maintain their livelihoods. The choice that we give them currently is a terrible one where they are unable to continue the medication that has worked for them to alleviate their symptoms such as, say, pain, and we force them on to far more concerning drugs that are less safe on our roads such as opioids.

So the realities here really need to be investigated by this government and that is why, with recommendation 1, I do hope the Malinauskas government will take some leadership and pursue that process of drafting a bill—there have been several already before this parliament for them to take as a starting point—and then do the proper consultation advised by health professionals and true road safety professionals, and put aside the stigma, the hyperbole and the polemics around this where we literally have road safety ads that say, 'We will get you long after the high is gone,' knowing that in fact that is not a road safety provision, that is simply a further criminalisation of cannabis provisions where somebody has THC in their system.

The pharmacists and the doctors and others have shown us that there are pathways here to establish that defence for those drivers. It works in Tasmania. Curiously, in our evidence, we actually heard of a situation of a particular driver in Tasmania who was not able to avail themselves of the defence because they had used a pharmacy from another state or territory, so they were left without the pathway of proving that their medicinal cannabis was indeed dispensed and used appropriately. That is an anomaly in that law in Tasmania, and I certainly hope that they address that, but here we have far more work to do than Tasmania, and we can look to them for their lead. Recommendation 2 is:

That consideration be given by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport to the monitoring of technologies or methods developed for the purposes of assessment of impairment, with the potential for implementation in respect of enforcement of offences where impairment is an element of the offence.

Where more accurate technologies or methods are identified, procurement (where necessary) and introduction of such technologies or methods must occur as a matter of priority.

Simply put, the testing regime we currently use for our roadside tests only tests for presence of THC; it does not test for impairment. Unlike our alcohol testing system it does not look at levels, and it does not use not just the technologies but, in fact, some of the old traditional methods of assessing impairment or lack of impairment. Recommendation 3 is:

That consideration be given by the Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector to the necessity of specific regulation of workers where it is unlawful for such workers to undertake their duties with THC present in oral fluid or blood. That consideration be given to providing for such workers to undertake their duties where they:

a. have been prescribed [medicinal cannabis] products containing THC in accordance with the Controlled Substances Act or a corresponding Act of another State or Territory;

b. are using their medication in accordance with the prescription;

c. have zero blood alcohol concentration; and

d. are not impaired.

This is a body of work for the minister in this place, the Minister for Industrial Relations, to take on. We need work health and safety policies that truly keep workers safe. When we have a Return to Work system that allows patients to access medicinal cannabis, that sees that it works and that assists them to be in the workplace, we also have to have workplace policies that allow them to continue taking their medication in a safe way in those workplaces. Again, the history of prohibition, the stigma, often need to be addressed.

This is possibly a more direct conversation that the Minister for Industrial Relations can institute among workplaces, because some workplaces in this state are already managing this issue. Indeed, we have heard evidence of some workplaces where somebody can operate heavy machinery inside the gate, because they are a medicinal cannabis patient but the appropriate workplace health and safety provisions have been put in place, but they cannot actually drive to work to go through that gate to then do their job.

It is a ludicrous situation, again, where on one side of the gate they are deemed fit and capable despite our archaic criminalisation of cannabis over the years, and outside the gate they are seen as criminals by the police simply because of our historical provisions. It is a ludicrous situation, it does need to be addressed and there is a body of work there for the Minister for Industrial Relations to do. So we do call on him to take a look at that. The minister is also required, under recommendation 4, to consider that he introduce:

…a requirement that PCBUs must treat [medicinal cannabis] in the same way as other prescribed drugs (with the potential to cause impairment) when drafting and enforcing work health and safety policies.

Such reform [of course] is appropriately to be accompanied by the funding of an education program for the benefit of PCBUs and Health and Safety Representatives who wish to better understand the risks or potential benefits that may arise from allowing employees (who are not subject to specific regulation prohibiting the presence of THC (noting Recommendation 3)) to undertake their duties where they:

a. have been prescribed [medicinal cannabis] products containing THC in accordance with the Controlled Substances Act or a corresponding Act of another State or Territory;

b. are using their medication in accordance with the prescription;

c. have zero blood alcohol concentration; and

d. are not impaired.

Recommendation 5 of this interim report states:

A. Subject to part B of this recommendation, that consideration be given by the Minister for Health and Wellbeing to amendment of the Controlled Substances Act to exclude [medicinal cannabis] products from those that are to be subject to s 18A(1)(a) requirements.

B Where a patient is known to be drug dependent, or there is reasonable cause to believe the same, a requirement to obtain authorisation from SA Health under s 18A(1)(a) (to prescribe a [medicinal cannabis] product containing THC) remains appropriate.

Recommendation 6 is also for the Minister for Health and Wellbeing and calls on him to undertake an assessment of the potential benefits that may result from the introduction of uniform dispensing requirements for medicinal cannabis products. Recommendation 7 asks for the Minister for Health and Wellbeing to undertake an assessment of the potential benefits that may result from the introduction of uniform standards for the purposes of transportation and storage of medicinal cannabis products across our state and nation.

Recommendation 8 calls on the Minister for Health and Wellbeing to write to the Australian Minister for Health and Aged Care:

…to note evidence received in respect of eligibility for Medicare benefits for Telehealth consultations by general practitioners, namely that the requirement for an 'established clinical relationship' to be in existence has the potential to limit affordable access to online cannabis clinics, and consequently to [medicinal cannabis] products. To propose that the Australian Minister for Health and Aged Care give consideration to removing this requirement where a medical practice is located more than 80km from the patient's principal place of residence or consults patients only by way of Telehealth.

Certainly, opening up access to those medical professionals who are educated and skilled and able to prescribe medicinal cannabis products will go a long way to assisting patients in this state. Of course that is an issue because when most of our GPs went through university, and studied health and medicine, cannabis was only viewed as an illicit substance. It was not a medicinal substance able to be prescribed, and so in fact often their knowledge of it is not as strong as it could be, and there is a body of educational work to do there. Until all doctors are able to be skilled up, that telehealth option is actually more important for this than for many other drugs. Recommendation 9 states:

So that patients being treated with [medicinal cannabis] are not disadvantaged by admission to a South Australian hospital, that consideration be given by the Minister for Health and Wellbeing to amendment of any protocols applicable in South Australian hospitals, as necessary to provide that [medicinal cannabis] may:

(a) be dispensed from hospital pharmacies;

(b) if lawfully dispensed by an external pharmacy, be self-supplied by an in-patient; and

(c) be consumed on hospital premises by an in-patient where it can be administered in a way that does not impact the health or safety of others.

Recommendation 10 calls for the Minister for Health and Wellbeing to consider providing logistical assistance and support to the medicinal cannabis industry to provide access to medicinal cannabis products on a compassionate basis in our state. Time and time again, this committee has heard that, where medicinal cannabis patients are able to work their way through the health system and access a prescription, quite often the product is simply unaffordable, and certainly on an ongoing basis unaffordable and unsustainable.

The medicinal cannabis industry recognises this and runs some ad hoc programs. One in particular that I thought was quite worthy and meritorious was for endometriosis patients who deal with chronic pain. Indeed, medicinal cannabis there has been proven to be quite life changing and life enabling for those people.

By using the systems of SA Health, our government could go a long way to ensuring that medicinal cannabis products that are available through the industry, particularly where there is excess stock, can be accessed by those most in need, getting those patients most in need the medication that they need at a price that they can afford. That is something that our state government could step up and ensure happens, and it is something that the industry is calling for governments to assist with. Recommendation 11 states:

That consideration be given by the Minister for Health and Wellbeing to the introduction of an aggravated offence of supplying cannabis where the supply is by way of use of packaging or labelling that may give the appearance that the supply of cannabis has been lawfully dispensed in accordance with a prescription. To protect the integrity of the [medicinal cannabis] regime…

That is an area where, of course, there are charlatans entering the market, and we do want to make sure that people who seek what is now a lawful prescription medication are getting the medication that they need and that has been prescribed for them. We are concerned that the further criminalisation, however, of cannabis and the fact that medicinal cannabis has not necessarily been given the support that it needs so far is opening the way up and opening the door to those particular charlatans. Recommendation 12 states:

That consideration be given by the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science to review South Australia's planning laws for the purpose of seeking to identify options to remove or minimise unnecessary barriers to, and to optimise benefits obtained by, establishing [medicinal cannabis] businesses in South Australia to operate pursuant to licenses/permits issued under the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 (Cth).

I hope that the Minister for Planning there will give consideration to that. Again, it is a legacy of a system where cannabis was criminalised but now medicinal cannabis often has to operate as if they are criminals unnecessarily, needlessly, and we are getting in the way of industry and business flourishing in this state.

Finally, lucky recommendation 13 is to call on the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science to establish collaborative relationships (including grants) between the government of South Australia and academic institutions for the purposes of furthering research into potential benefits and risks that may arise from the use of medicinal cannabis, with particular focus in the areas of industrial relations, health and road safety.

Driving and medicinal cannabis seems to be one of the most studied subjects on the planet and there is a wealth of information should any government be seeking it. I certainly recommend to anyone in this country to just start with the Lambert Initiative but then work your way right around the nation. There is a lot of work being done here.

There is, of course, more that could be done and certainly in that area of work health and safety I hope a Labor government, with a record of innovating, with having supported appropriate and considered conversations around industrial hemp, as well as medicinal cannabis in the past, will see that this is an opportunity not only to support their citizens but to see this flourish in our state as a clean, green industry that shows compassion and cares for patients rather than criminalises them. With that, I commend the report to the council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT