|
senate vote 2017-06-13#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2017-07-13 13:44:25
|
Title
Regulations and Determinations — Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Narcotic Drugs) Regulation 2016; Disallowance- Regulations and Determinations - Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Narcotic Drugs) Regulation 2016 - Disallow
Description
<p class="speaker">Jacqui Lambie</p><p>Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement to explain why I was not in the chamber for the vote on the motion to disallow the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Narcotic Drugs) Regulation 2016.</p><p>Leave granted.</p>- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-06-13.7.1) to allow a vote to happen. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to suspend [standing orders](http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/standing-orders.html).
- Greens Senator [Richard Di Natale](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/richard_di_natale) introduced this motion [on request](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-06-13.4.3) of Senator [Jacqui Lambie](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/tasmania/jacqui_lambie) since Senator Lambie was absent [last time this vote was taken](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/senate/2017-05-11/4).
- ### What was the vote?
- The vote at issue was a vote to disallow the [Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Narcotic Drugs) Regulation 2016](https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016L01652)
- Senator Di Natale explains what this disallowance would restore the ability of terminally ill patients to access medicinal cannabis products. Read more about the regulation in its [explanatory memorandum](https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016L01652/Explanatory%20Statement/Text) and the arguments for its disallowance in the [debate](http://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2017-06-13.4.2).
- ### Motion text
- > *That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion relating to the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that the question on the motion to disallow the [Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Narcotic Drugs) Regulation 2016](https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016L01652) be put again immediately.*
<p>At the time when the division on the motion to disallow the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Narcotic Drugs) Regulation 2016 was called, I was absent from the Senate chamber due to a missed communication between staff regarding where I was required to be and when. Channels of communication have since been amended to better meet the level of service I expect and the level of service the people of Tasmania, who I represent, deserve. I ultimately accept responsibility for the failure to attend the division, and for that I am sorry. Had I been in the chamber, I would have voted in favour of the disallowance motion. I apologise for the inconvenience caused to the Senate.</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Di Natale</p><p>I seek leave to have the vote on the motion to disallow the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Narcotic Drugs) Regulation 2016 taken again.</p><p>Leave not granted.</p><p>Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:</p><p class="italic">That so much of the—</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Just a moment. What may assist the chamber, Senator Di Natale, is that Senator Fifield jumped to his feet at the same time as you did, and I called you first. Senator Fifield may assist the process. I think he needs to seek clarification or make a statement. So, if the Senate is happy, I will call Senator Fifield. There is no objection to that? Then you can come back to your cause if you seek to suspend standing orders. Are you happy with that course of action, Senator Di Natale?</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Di Natale</p><p>It depends where it goes next.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Well, I will not allow your right to be impinged, if I can put it that way.</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>Thank you, Mr President, I seek leave to speak on the matter that Senator Lambie raised.</p><p>Leave granted.</p><p>Thank you, Mr President. I think all colleagues acknowledge and recognise the precedents and practice in this place that, if a senator has missed a vote through misadventure, they come to the table at the earliest opportunity and give an explanation as to the reason that they were unable to attend the vote, and then the Senate chamber will take that into consideration in determining whether a matter should be recommitted.</p><p>There are a few points that I should make for the benefit of colleagues. The first is that that disallowance motion was on the <i>Notice Paper</i> for 15 days, so that was well known to colleagues. Also, there was a time management motion in place to ensure that that particular motion was dealt with before the Senate rose for the break. I heard and colleagues heard Senator Lambie indicate that there was a miscommunication in the office. I should draw the attention of colleagues to a quote from BuzzFeed the day after the vote, which quoted Senator Lambie as saying that she had abstained from the vote because she still had concerns about the unintended consequences and did not feel like she had enough information.</p><p>It is possible that news organisations can, on occasion, perhaps, not give an accurate reflection of what a colleague says. I am not suggesting that that is the case at this time, but if it is the case—that that is not an accurate reflection of the conversation that Senator Lambie had with BuzzFeed—it would be incumbent on Senator Lambie to state to this chamber that that is the case. I would also expect, if that were the case, that Senator Lambie would have contacted the media organisation to ask them to amend what they had, accordingly. None of us were a party to that conversation, so we do not know where the matter lies, in that regard.</p><p>The second point I would make, in relation to that particular vote, is that the convention is that a senator come to the chamber at the earliest opportunity to give an account as to why they had a misadventure. The vote in question took place at 4.15 pm. The Senate was sitting that day until 10.45 pm. Taking out the two-hour dinner break the Senate was in session for 4½ hours after that particular vote took place. I am not aware of a situation where a senator has sought to have a vote recommitted, in the case of an alleged misadventure, other than very shortly after the vote took place and certainly no later than the day itself that the vote took place.</p><p>I would say to you, Mr President, and to colleagues that if what took place was an abstention, abstentions are not something that can be used as a placeholder until a colleague determines the position that they would like to take and then give effect to it by way of a recommittal. None of us were party to the conversation between the senator and BuzzFeed so we do not know where the situation lies. It is always the disposition of this place to take what colleagues say at face value. I thought it nevertheless important to bring to colleagues the intention of something that was on the public record.</p><p>Even if we put that particular matter aside, it is not appropriate for a recommittal to take place other than in a circumstance where a colleague indicates misadventure at the earliest opportunity after the substantive vote has been taken and, at least, on the day itself that the vote occurred. There were 4½ hours of the chamber sitting. I do acknowledge that the 'no divisions after four o'clock' rule was in place; however, that still does not stop a colleague from coming into this place to indicate that they have had an issue and to explain this to the chamber at that time.</p><p>My submission to colleagues is that the fact this was not drawn to the intention of the chamber immediately after the vote, and not even on the day itself, in a situation where this was on the <i>Notice Paper</i> for 15 days and where there was a time-management motion in place means that, on this occasion, the petition of the colleague should not be acceded to.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Senator Di Natale, just before I call you again, I think it important we deal with the issue of the personal explanation and I am going to invite any other senator—or, indeed, Senator Lambie—if they wish to respond or make any further statement. There being no further response on that matter I call Senator Di Natale.</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Di Natale</p><p>I seek leave to have the vote on the motion to disallow the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Narcotic Drugs) Regulation 2016 taken again.</p><p>Leave not granted.</p><p>Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:</p><p class="italic">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion relating to the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that the question on the motion to disallow the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Narcotic Drugs) Regulation 2016 be put again immediately.</p><p>We have here a disallowance motion that effectively says to people around Australia: if you are suffering from a terminal illness, it is no longer acceptable that you cannot get access to medication that can relieve you of your pain and suffering. We are seeing the chamber express a view that it will no longer stand by and watch the government prevent effective treatment from reaching terminally ill people. We stood here on 11 May, the last sitting day that we had the opportunity to speak to this issue, and I spoke about the patients whose lives would be improved through this disallowance. These are people who are dying. They are people who are suffering. Some of them have intractable nausea. Some of them have pain. Some of them have no appetite. They are people with brain tumours. They are people with cancers. They are people on chemotherapy. They are people who cannot get access to treatment that will relieve them of their pain and suffering. It is shameful that the position of this government is to deny access to treatment to those people who are suffering. Today we are seeing the Greens and, hopefully, the Labor Party and the crossbench coming together and saying: 'We are behind you. We will not make your life harder. We will give you access to treatment that you cannot currently access.'</p><p>As I outlined last time when we considered this motion, support for this disallowance motion is effectively support for restoring the existing rights of patients who, by definition, are suffering from life-threatening conditions. We have said on numerous occasions that medicinal cannabis should be treated like other medicines, like other treatments. There are special pathways that give people who are suffering from terminal illnesses access to treatment that may not be available here in Australia. We say that for all other medication. If we are saying that medicinal cannabis is a treatment that can treat symptoms like intractable nausea secondary to chemotherapy, why are we making a special case that says, 'You cannot access this drug through a scheme that allows people to access all other drugs that might not be available here in Australia'?</p><p>This disallowance makes two simple changes to the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Narcotic Drugs) Regulation 2016 to restore—and again I say 'restore'—the rights of terminally ill patients, rights that were stripped away when the government supported this regulation, so that those people can now access medicinal cannabis products through category A of the TGA Special Access Scheme. This Special Access Scheme is designed to provide a pathway for Australian patients to get access to medicines that are not available to people here in Australia. We are saying: if this medicine is available here in Australia, wonderful, but, if you cannot get access to it right now and you are suffering—you have oesophageal cancer or pancreatic cancer or a brain tumour and you are on heavy-duty chemotherapy drugs and you cannot hold your food down and your quality of life is miserable—that we are going to give you an option to source this drug, to make sure that it provides you with relief from your symptoms.</p><p>There are two different categories—category A and category B—and they have got different levels of regulation associated with them. The condition of the patient is very strictly defined in the Special Access Scheme. Under category A, this is who gets access: 'persons who are seriously ill with a condition from which death is reasonably likely to occur within a matter of months, or from which premature death is reasonably likely to occur in the absence of early treatment'. That is why this scheme exists. Why would we abolish this scheme just for medicinal cannabis but keep it open for access to other drugs?</p><p>Singling out medicinal cannabis is saying to people that we are treating this medication in a different way to the other life-saving medications that are available in the current category A scheme. I say to this chamber: support this treatment and support the patients who are suffering right now.</p> <p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>I will not go over at length what I said in my earlier contribution other than to indicate to colleagues that recommittal is not something that is appropriate to use as a device in a circumstance where an outcome in this chamber is not what colleagues moving a motion would have liked. Recommittal, as a mechanism by convention, is one that is sought by a particular colleague where they have had a misadventure that has prevented them getting to the chamber to vote. That is something that is usually indicated to the Senate at the earliest opportunity and certainly at least on the date itself that the substantive vote took place.</p><p>As I indicated, there was 4½ hours of time that the Senate was in session after the vote had occurred. The vote that occurred did reflect the will of the chamber and the view of the chamber. If that were not the case then that is a matter that should have been brought to the attention of the Senate on the day on which the substantive vote occurred. That did not happen and for those reasons and for those that I outlined in my contribution by leave when speaking to Senator Lambie's contribution by leave the government will not be supporting this motion.</p> <p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p><p>I rise to make a few comments as well on this matter, particularly that we will support the suspension of standing orders and support a division on this matter taking place again today. This morning, Senator Lambie explained to the chamber why she was not present when the original motion for disallowance was dealt with on 11 May. Her language to the chamber was that there was a miscommunication with staff that prevented her from being here, that she has addressed that issue in her office and that she also apologises for the inconvenience caused to the Senate. The opposition will take Senator Lambie at her word following her explanation to the chamber and, in accordance with precedent and practice of this place, support this motion being recommitted today.</p><p>I note the comments by the government, specifically around the timing. I note that this disallowance was dealt with in the afternoon of the last sitting day and that there was no further opportunity for division that day. I also note and recall previous times where we have supported a recommittal of a vote, most recently with Senators Hanson and Burston over the backpacker tax. I believe an explanation in that case was provided the following sitting day. We supported that despite not having our position reflected once that vote was recommitted. The standing orders certainly allow for this to occur. They are quite clear about the fact that the decisions of the Senate should not be made by misadventure and that a senator who misses a division is expected to make an explanation and an apology to the Senate. That has occurred today, and for those reasons the opposition will be supporting Senator Di Natale's motion to have the motion recommitted today.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|