Tuesday, 17 March 2026

 David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (21:29): (2403) My adjournment is to the Minister for Veterans and concerns the federal Department of Veterans’ Affairs’ updated medicinal cannabis framework introduced last month. While the DVA claims these resources are intended to safeguard the health and wellbeing of veterans and ensure treatments are safe and effective, the reality is quite different. The new framework severely restricts access to care for many veterans who rely on DVA-funded medicinal cannabis to manage chronic pain, service-related injuries and other conditions. A major barrier is the requirement for in-person consultations. Restricting telehealth is a huge obstacle for veterans in regional and rural areas, where specialist prescribers may be hours away. Veterans managing PTSD, traumatic brain injury, mobility challenges or severe anxiety cannot access treatment due to the travel requirements. We heard of one veteran who has a total impairment and is the sole carer of three children under 12. He cannot physically get to the nearest face-to-face clinic with a medicinal cannabis prescriber as it is over 400 kilometres away. Access is further reduced by limiting prescribing to clinicians with specialist Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency registration, significantly reducing the pool of prescribers. While prescribers may exist on paper, many have closed books, have long wait times or require restrictive referrals. Rather than improving care, the framework cripples access to it at a time when demand among veterans is increasing and clinical evidence supporting medicinal cannabis continues to grow.

The opioid crisis within veteran communities is well documented, yet veterans who have finally found relief through medicinal cannabis are now being pushed back towards the higher risk opioids as access to a safer alternative has been removed – how ironic. The DVA cites safety concerns while collecting no data on whether safety issues actually exist. These restrictions are being imposed based on hypothetical risks, not evidence of harm. Although the framework is federal, the Victorian government can still help by improving regional specialist access, expanding patient travel assistance for veterans and increasing clinician education around emerging treatments. The action I seek is for the minister to urgently lobby her federal counterpart to reinstate the previous model and undertake genuine consultation with veterans, clinics, advocates and prescribers to develop a revised framework grounded in real clinical outcomes, not administrative expectations.