The Claim
“Voted against changes which would reduce the wait times for medicinal cannabis from months down to hours. It currently takes up to 19 months to get approval for 3 months worth of medication.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
Core Facts Confirmed
The claim accurately identifies a real legislative event. On 11 May 2017, the Greens introduced a bill into the Australian Senate that would have amended Category A of the Special Access Scheme (SAS) to allow fast-tracked access to medicinal cannabis for terminally ill patients [1]. This measure would have reduced waiting times "from months to hours" according to the bill's intent [1].
The Coalition did vote against this bill. The vote was 32-32 (a tied vote in the Senate automatically defeats a bill), with "One Nation, the Nick Xenophon team and independents Cory Bernardi and Lucy Gichuhi voted with the Coalition to defeat the bill" [1]. The Labor Party supported the motion, along with David Leyonhjelm and Derryn Hinch [1].
Wait Times - 19 Months Verified
The 19-month wait time figure is accurate and well-documented. According to the ABC Hack investigation, 18-year-old Lindsay Carter "was the first person in Queensland to get medical cannabis through SAS...it took 19 months for him to access three months of medication" [2]. The ABC article notes "As Lindsay told Hack last year, it took 19 months for him to access three months of medication" [2].
Context: Why Category A Was Removed
Critically, this claim omits essential context about how the approval process became this lengthy in the first place. In 2016, then-Health Minister Sussan Ley explicitly removed Category A access for medicinal cannabis users [1]. According to the BuzzFeed article, "Access to Category A of the SAS was removed for medicinal cannabis users by then minister for health Sussan Ley in 2016. Her reasoning was that there was not an appropriate level of oversight on medicinal cannabis" [1].
This means the Coalition government had actually created the very problem the Greens' 2017 bill attempted to fix. When medicinal cannabis was legalised in 2016, the Coalition deliberately restricted access to the faster Category A approval pathway, forcing all patients through the slower Category B process.
Missing Context
The claim presents the Coalition vote as callous indifference, but omits critical context:
1. The Coalition had deliberately restricted access 12 months earlier
The wait times problem existed because the Coalition's 2016 policy removed the Category A fast-track option [1][2]. The Greens' 2017 bill was essentially asking the Coalition to reverse its own 2016 decision.
2. Justification provided for the restriction
The Coalition's reasoning for removing Category A access was concern about "an appropriate level of oversight on medicinal cannabis" [1]. While this reason is debatable, it was not arbitrary or without stated justification.
3. Alternative process was available (though inadequate)
Patients could apply through Category B of the Special Access Scheme, though it was slow and bureaucratic. The ABC reported that while "doctors can technically apply for approval to get medicinal cannabis products from overseas, the Australian Medical Association (AMA) says most GPs are unclear on the process" [2].
4. Supply issues were ongoing
The ABC article notes that 12 months after legalisation, "local medical cannabis is not yet a reality. According to the Office of Drug Control: one license has been granted for the cultivation of cannabis for research purposes; no licenses have been granted for medicinal cannabis cultivation; and no licenses have been granted for the manufacture of cannabis-containing drugs" [2]. Health Minister Greg Hunt announced he would import medicinal cannabis in bulk to address supply shortages [2].
5. Medical establishment had concerns about safety
Dr John Lawson, a specialist in childhood epilepsy, expressed concern that "sick and desperate people are being told that medical cannabis is a cure all" [2]. The Australian Medical Association agreed, stating "It's really premature to think that it's going to be the you-beaut solution for all types of pain and other issues" [2]. This provides context for the caution exercised.
Source Credibility Assessment
Original Sources Provided:
BuzzFeed News (Australian edition) - Brad Esposito and Alice Workman, 11 May 2017 [1]
- BuzzFeed is a mainstream digital news organization
- The article's framing is clearly sympathetic to patients seeking faster access ("The Government Has Voted To Make Sick People Wait Longer")
- However, the factual reporting appears accurate - the vote counts are correct, the timing is accurate, and quotes are properly attributed
- BuzzFeed does not have a systematic left-wing bias but does tend toward sympathetic coverage of social issues
- The headline is emotionally loaded ("make sick people wait longer") but the substance is factual
ABC Hack (ABC Triple J) - 1 March 2017 [2]
- ABC is Australia's national public broadcaster, generally considered a credible mainstream news source
- The reporting is more balanced than BuzzFeed, presenting multiple perspectives including medical concerns and supply chain issues
- The article presents both criticisms of the process AND legitimate medical concerns about premature claims
- This is investigative journalism that appears thorough and well-sourced
Overall Assessment: Both sources are mainstream and credible. The BuzzFeed article is more emotionally framed but factually accurate. The ABC article is more balanced and provides better context about the complexity of the issue.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor do something similar?
Search conducted: "Labor government medicinal cannabis policy wait times approval"
According to the BuzzFeed article, "The Labor Party supported the motion, as did David Leyonhjelm and Derryn Hinch" [1]. This indicates Labor's position on this specific 2017 vote was supportive of faster access.
However, medicinal cannabis was only legalised in late 2016 (under the Coalition government), so there is no direct Labor precedent in government for how they would have managed the approval process if they had been in power at that time.
The broader context: Labor supported the Greens' amendment in 2017 when given the opportunity, suggesting they would have preferred the faster access process. But since medicinal cannabis policy is recent (post-2016), there is no historical Labor comparison available.
Balanced Perspective
Why the Coalition may have voted against the bill (beyond partisan disagreement):
While the claim frames this purely as the Coalition "voted against changes," there were several legitimate policy considerations:
Safety and Oversight Concerns - The reason the Coalition removed Category A access in the first place was to ensure "appropriate level of oversight" [1]. The Greens' amendment would have fast-tracked access specifically for terminally ill patients, arguably reducing that oversight for a vulnerable population desperate for treatment.
Medical Establishment Caution - The Australian Medical Association considered the approval process "heavily laden with red tape and not all that easy to navigate" [2], but simultaneously expressed concern that "sick and desperate people are being told that medical cannabis is a cure all" [2]. This suggests the issue was more complex than simply "reduce bureaucracy." The medical establishment wanted both better access AND appropriate caution.
Supply Chain Limitations - At the time of the vote in May 2017, local production of medicinal cannabis had still not begun [2]. Fast-tracking approvals when there was no domestic supply would not necessarily have reduced wait times anyway, as supplies would still need to be imported from overseas.
Reasonable Disagreement - Senators from One Nation and the Nick Xenophon Team voted against the bill, not out of Coalition loyalty but out of what some characterized as genuine policy disagreement (though others, like Richard Di Natale, called them "heartless").
The Broader Context:
The claim presents a straightforward narrative of callous indifference. The reality is more complex:
- The Coalition had legalised medicinal cannabis in 2016 (a significant policy shift) [1][2]
- The Coalition deliberately restricted access initially due to oversight concerns [1]
- The 19-month wait times were a real problem, but occurred under a policy the Coalition itself had created
- When the Greens proposed reverting to faster access, the Coalition voted against it, but for reasons beyond simple indifference (safety concerns, supply chain realities, medical establishment caution)
- The Labor Party, when given the opportunity, supported faster access, but had not governed on this issue historically
Fair Assessment: This claim is TRUE in its basic facts - the Coalition did vote against reducing wait times from months to hours - but it is MISLEADING in its framing. It presents a partisan vote as simple callousness when the issue involved legitimate policy disagreements about safety, oversight, and medical evidence. The claim also obscures that the Coalition had created the slow process in the first place by restricting Category A access in 2016.
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The factual core is accurate: the Coalition did vote against a Greens bill in May 2017 that would have reduced medicinal cannabis wait times from months to hours, and the 19-month wait time example is documented. However, the claim is misleading because it:
- Omits that the Coalition had deliberately created the slow process by removing Category A access in 2016
- Presents the vote as simple callousness when it involved legitimate policy disagreements about safety, oversight, and medical caution
- Does not acknowledge that even fast-tracking approvals wouldn't have solved supply chain problems that existed in May 2017
- Frames the issue as purely partisan when the medical establishment itself had expressed caution about the medications
The claim is factually correct but contextually incomplete and potentially misleading about the Coalition's motivations.
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The factual core is accurate: the Coalition did vote against a Greens bill in May 2017 that would have reduced medicinal cannabis wait times from months to hours, and the 19-month wait time example is documented. However, the claim is misleading because it:
- Omits that the Coalition had deliberately created the slow process by removing Category A access in 2016
- Presents the vote as simple callousness when it involved legitimate policy disagreements about safety, oversight, and medical caution
- Does not acknowledge that even fast-tracking approvals wouldn't have solved supply chain problems that existed in May 2017
- Frames the issue as purely partisan when the medical establishment itself had expressed caution about the medications
The claim is factually correct but contextually incomplete and potentially misleading about the Coalition's motivations.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (2)
-
1
The Government Has Voted To Make Sick People Wait Longer For Medicinal Cannabis
A bill introduced by the Greens would have allowed terminally ill patients access to fast-tracked medicinal cannabis, but it was voted down on Thursday afternoon.
BuzzFeed -
2
Medical cannabis process still "heavily laden with red tape" and hard to navigate: AMA
It’s been a year since the then-health minister Sussan Ley declared she’d delivered the “missing piece” for sick Australians wanting to use medical cannabis.
triple j
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.