Wednesday, 30 August 2023

Committees

Legal and Social Issues Committee

Reference

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (11:42): I move:

That this house:

(1) notes the validity of medicinal cannabis as a legitimate and lawful prescription medicine for people suffering from a range of serious illnesses and conditions;

(2) further notes that:

(a) while workplace drug testing fulfils an important role especially where there is risk to occupational health and safety, existing workplace drug-testing practices and procedures may unfairly discriminate against medicinal cannabis patients, as compared to patients taking other prescription medicines, by treating medicinal cannabis as an illicit drug, when it is not;

(b) medicinal cannabis, a lawful medication, prescribed by a doctor and taken in accordance with that prescription, should be treated in the same way as any other prescription medication;

(c) where a medicinal cannabis patient is not impaired by their medication at work, the medication they are prescribed should not be a barrier to gainful employment;

(3) in acknowledging that no-one should be impaired by their medication in the workplace, requires the Legal and Social Issues Committee to inquire into, consider and report, by 30 June 2024, on:

(a) the legislative and regulatory framework for workplace drug testing;

(b) the treatment of prescription medicinal cannabis as compared to other prescription medications, under that workplace drug-testing framework;

(c) whether the framework for occupational health and safety and workplace drug testing may be improved to benefit medicinal cannabis patients, ensuring due process and natural justice in workplace settings, balanced against risks to occupational health and safety;

(d) whether current workplace drug-testing laws and procedures are discriminatory in nature and could be addressed by the addition of a further protected attribute, such as ‘medication or medical treatment’, in Victoria’s anti-discrimination laws;

(e) any other relevant matters; and

(4) directs the committee, in undertaking this inquiry, to limit its consideration to workplace drug testing and not consider the broader subject of roadside drug testing and reform of the Road Safety Act 1986.

Medicinal cannabis patients experience stigma and discrimination, unlike other patients. They do not choose to be sick, they do not choose to have a serious illness or a medical condition and they did not choose which medication would be most effective at addressing their symptoms. But because that medication has ‘cannabis’ in its name, they are all too often judged and prejudiced as illicit drug users. We have shone a light on this stigma as it applies to medicinal cannabis in the context of our driving laws, but that is but one part of the issue that we are confronting. Today I highlight another way that Victorian laws and practices prejudice medicinal cannabis patients, and I ask for this house’s support in finding a solution.

Medicinal cannabis is a legitimate and lawful prescription medication for people suffering from a range of serious illnesses and conditions, whether that is severe muscle spasms or severe pain resulting from multiple sclerosis, severe seizures resulting from epileptic conditions, endometriosis or many other debilitating health conditions. Medicinal cannabis prescribed by a doctor and taken in accordance with that prescription should be treated in the same way as any other prescription medication. Unfortunately, this has not been the case with driving, and it is not the case in the workplace, which is why we want to do something about it.

Some industries, like mining and transport, have legislative requirements to test for illicit drugs. Other sectors require illicit drug testing as part of occupational health and safety programs or as part of enterprise bargaining agreements. It is not a part of every workplace, but it does cross multiple sectors, and it affects many, many working Victorians. In that regard I would like to just note that the motion that is before the house has been discussed and endorsed by the Victorian Trades Hall Council, the building industry group in particular.

For medicinal cannabis patients this situation can have profoundly deleterious consequences. Patients, simply for taking their prescribed medication, are being caught up by workplace illicit drug testing regimes and then treated in the workplace as if they had tested positive for illicit drugs when they have not. It is unfair, it is discriminatory and it is costing people their jobs and their livelihoods. Where a medicinal cannabis patient is not impaired by their medication at work, the medication they are prescribed should not be a bar to gainful employment. But in the workplace, patients are being treated as criminals because their medicine is triggering a workplace illicit drug test. Worse still, we have heard from many Victorian medicinal cannabis consumers that they have faced discrimination or dismissal when they have simply advised their employer that they have been prescribed medicinal cannabis. This is outrageous. For a medicinal cannabis patient, a positive test result is neither evidence of illicit use nor evidence of impairment, and as a matter of fairness it should not cost someone their livelihood.

Medicinal cannabis patients prescribed a CBD-based medication, which is not psychoactive, will never be impaired by that medication, but trace amounts of THC in that medication can trigger a positive test result. For these patients there should be no ramifications of a positive workplace test – ever – but that is not the case. Most patients prescribed a THC- or psychoactive-based medication will not be impaired 4 hours after consumption, and most often a script of this type will specify evening dosing. For example, 12 hours after consumption, when a THC-prescribed patient arrives at work, they will be well and truly safe at work, with a significant buffer built in. Unfortunately the reality, though, is that for medicinal cannabis patients the way this medication is metabolised in the body is such that it is detectable for days and weeks after impairment has ceased. A positive test in this context is not evidence of impairment, it is not evidence of occupational health and safety risk and it should not be treated as such.

I know from the many, many thoughtful contributions that came from both sides of this place during the debate on medicinal cannabis driving that this conundrum of the presence of a drug versus impairment is well known to the members of this house. Can I say on behalf on Legalise Cannabis Victoria that we are profoundly grateful for the very thoughtful contributions that were made by parties from all parts of this house in that debate.

We today ask that the Legal and Social Issues Committee be tasked to inquire into this issue and to suggest some solutions. No-one should be impaired at work – okay? I do not think we have got an argument there. And equally, those who are appropriately medicated and safe to attend work should not be punished for taking the very medication that in many cases makes it possible for them to be at work and to feel like functioning and contributing members of their community and their workplace. We ask the committee, in exploring this issue, to find this balance and to look for genuine solutions that allow for medicinal cannabis patients to live lives to their fullest potential without compromising the safety and health of those they work with.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (11:49): I rise to speak to the notice of motion, as has been highlighted by Mr Ettershank, regarding medicinal cannabis. This issue, as he stated, relates to a legitimate and lawful prescription medicine for people suffering from a range of serious illnesses and conditions. The motion looks at the role of workplace drug testing and how people who are on medicinal cannabis can work lawfully.

That is the gist of the motion: that medicinal cannabis is obviously being used in a range of areas and is a lawful medication prescribed by a number of doctors at present and, in relation to the issue around health and safety issues in the workplace, that this issue be referred to the Legal and Social Issues Committee so that it can be looked into thoroughly.

The motion goes through in detail how that would operate: the legislative and regulatory framework for workplace drug testing, the treatment of prescription medicinal cannabis as compared to other prescription medications and how that would operate under the workplace drug-testing framework, whether the framework for occupational health and safety and workplace drug testing may be improved for those people that are using medicinal cannabis and whether current workplace drug-testing laws and procedures are discriminatory based on those that are prescribed medicinal cannabis through a GP as a lawful medication and whether they are therefore being denied the ability to work in a lawful manner. That it is the gist of the motion. The committee would be able to look at those issues in detail, and it is appropriate that it does so. It is a good issue for the committee to look through. The Parliament does lots of excellent work through the committee process, and this issue is one that is affecting many Victorians.

I note that in WA there have been parliamentary committees looking at this issue around drug-driving reforms. Of course they have a big mining industry, and it is a big impact for their industry over there, with many of their workers that are unable to work lawfully because they do have drug testing on a very regular basis. It has a massive impact for those people that are being prescribed medicinal cannabis and how they can operate in their own workplace. A range of other jurisdictions are looking at this issue, and I do note the concerns from the business community around their issues around worker safety and how it has to be managed very carefully. If I could say, that is the concern that I have, and I would hope that the committee would look very thoroughly at the implications for employers and those worksites that have got strict and stringent applications in place. The motion itself talks about that regulatory framework and goes to that very, very important point, but what would it mean for employers – would they have to pay for testing? What would be the impost for business?

I mean, business is being smashed in this state already. I have just come from a GP summit. They are small businesses. They are getting smashed by the health tax that is being imposed by this government. It will mean that clinics will shut down. It will mean that bulk-billing will go in this state. It is an Americanisation of health that is coming into this state based on what the government is doing. We have got to be supporting small business, and we have got to give them the proper framework and not impose more taxes or more cost on them. This issue around how it would apply in the broader workplace is something that I think this committee would have to look at very, very vigorously and ensure that those costs in no way cause a further increase in what businesses have to already pay, such as WorkCover premiums. Again I say the state is broke.

The WorkCover premiums that have increased in this state are smashing small business across the board. They cannot take on board any more costs. They need to be supported by government. And that is the main point, the main concern, I have: what this would mean for those legitimate businesses that are employing hundreds of thousands of Victorians – millions of Victorians, millions of Australians. It is the backbone of our economy, small business, and we need to be supporting it. We do not want to put any more imposts on them to be able to run and conduct their business in a way that they are not already being smashed.

The opposition does not oppose this. In fact we look forward to the Legal and Social Issues Committee undertaking this important inquiry and looking at these issues. I know that there are many Victorians who do take medicinal cannabis for a range of health reasons, whether it be anxiety or pain. It is a lawful prescription, and how it is supplied needs to be carefully monitored. We need to have a look at that. I do understand from previous inquiries that I have been involved in that there are legitimate concerns for police about how it is monitored in terms of capacity and impairment. I think there is a lot of work being undertaken in that space, which is a good thing as well. That needs to occur.

But I would again caution against any further impost to businesses around a further regulatory framework or testing requirements that they would then have to pay for or have applied to their businesses in an environment where businesses need support. They do not need more costs and imposts put on them. We need more support in this area. As I said, this government is no friend to small business. They have absolutely ripped the guts out of small business in this state, and it is being felt right across the board in every single sector. I look forward to the committee conducting its work and to its outcomes – the findings and recommendations that it will come to and conclude with.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (11:56): I rise to support this motion and thank Mr Ettershank for bringing it forward today. Sadly I am not surprised to hear Ms Crozier talking negatively about something that is so important to workers and something that is such a great opportunity. Talking about small businesses and business workplaces, having safe workplaces where we are supporting workers and where we are supporting our community, where we are keeping workers safe, keeping our community safe and getting the best outcome for workers when they go to their workplace is actually something that is fantastic for this state and fantastic for the productivity of this state. As I said, I am proud to support this motion. The Labor Party, on this side, was founded on advocating for and supporting workers – working people, their families and their communities. I think what is in this motion – again, I thank Mr Ettershank for bringing it forward – at its core is thinking about people within our communities, thinking about the outcomes for them.

I am going to go through and talk about a variety of different workers and the benefits that it will have for different groups or different sectors and industries of workers. I think from the start, from the get-go, it is very important that we are mindful of the fairness that this brings – that there is an opportunity for people who are suffering with ill health to have the fairness of the option to get the best treatment for themselves but also that we are ensuring that it is just, in a work context, that those workers, their co-workers and that community are safe and that individuals that go to work are not impaired and are able to contribute and contribute safely – contribute to not only their lives but to the productivity of the state, as I mentioned before. We know that workers support this. Unions are very supportive of ensuring that as many workers as possible can get to work safely and get home safely, as this motion brings forward.

I want to raise particularly workers with physical pain. It is perhaps easy for the other side to forget that people still turn up and do a very decent day’s work of manual operation. That can be across a number of sectors, whether it is agriculture, whether it is construction, whether it is manufacturing or whether it is all those workers in our health services – aged care, disability – that have a manual component of their job, which over years can lead to injury and can lead to physical trauma that sees people needing support through medication prescribed by their doctors. I will come to the fact that this government has enabled this whole conversation to occur by legalising this treatment through our medical system for workers. But the fact that workers are expected to show up, decade after decade –

The PRESIDENT: I apologise, Mr McIntosh. I need to interrupt your contribution.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.