David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

Earlier this year I supported the Narcotic Drugs Amendment Bill 2016 to legalise cannabis production and research for medicinal purposes. I did so reluctantly, because legalisation of medicinal marijuana came with the most absurd bureaucracy. It established an elaborate licensing scheme, with one form of licence authorising the cultivation of cannabis for manufacture into medicinal cannabis products, and a second authorising research into the cannabis plant that is to be used for medicinal purposes. The licensing scheme includes a strict fit and proper person test which involves consideration of the business and criminal history and financial status of applicants and their connections, associates and family.

My support for the legalisation of medicinal marijuana was also tinged with disappointment that we did not go further by removing Commonwealth impediments to recreational use of marijuana. Removing these impediments would admittedly involve an act of brinkmanship. We are a signatory to international drug conventions that list cannabis as a prohibited drug. So, if we removed Commonwealth impediments to recreational marijuana use, we would invite a lot of bleating and chest beating from UN bodies responsible for these conventions. The UN bodies could even threaten to withdraw their support for our opium poppy industry. But in the end I suspect our opium poppy industry would be unaffected. After all, the UN bodies have complained about cannabis legalisation in parts of the United States but have gone no further. Just this week—in fact, just two days ago—a further eight states—I think I have that number right—have approved recreational use of marijuana. We should not be held to ransom by UN bodies responsible for horrendous drug conventions that merely represent the bastard children of the prohibition era and the doomed war on drugs.

I oppose the Narcotic Drugs Legalisation Amendment Bill before us today because the task of legalising medicinal marijuana has already been done. All this bill does is tighten the regulatory noose. The bill allows the government to withhold information used against someone who is seeking a licence to produce a research medicinal marijuana even when that information is not sensitive to law enforcement information. This seems to go beyond what is necessary to protect the safety of witnesses and the ongoing efforts of law enforcement agencies. The government knows that its withholding of information that is used against people is a violation of natural justice. So the bill suspends a natural justice hearing rule that requires decision-makers to inform people about matters adverse to them. The Senate's Scrutiny of Bills Committee questions the necessity of this suspension.

The bill allows the government to regulate to expand the definition of a law enforcement agency. This will broaden the range of information that is withheld from people. Again, the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee questions the need for this provision. That committee has already raised concerns about instances in the bill where the onus of proof is reversed and where international pharmaceutical quality and safety standards are incorporated into law but where the standards will be available to the public only if a fee is paid. You should not have to pay to know the law.

Personally, I am also concerned about the bill allowing the government to regulate to expand the definition of the word 'drug' and to prevent medical practitioners from prescribing unapproved therapeutic goods for their patients. It is as if the government just gave birth to an industry and then immediately smothered it in red tape. All of this red tape would be unnecessary if both recreational and medicinal marijuana were legalised. Of the $1.5 billion spent annually on drug law enforcement in Australia, 70 per cent is attributable to cannabis. If marijuana were legal for recreational use, we could save this cost and $300 million of extra GST revenue would be generated. Most important of all is that people would be free to do what they want.