Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Hansard source

On more than one occasion I have followed Senator Leyonhjelm in this particular section of the legislative program, which deals with generally non-controversial legislation. I must say that we have this habit of coming to issues upon which Senator Leyonhjelm and I disagree, but there are usually only a few of those. I have made the observation before that, except when it comes to illicit substances, firearms and one or two other issues, I often find myself in sympathy with Senator Leyonhjelm. On the Narcotic Drugs Legislation Amendment Bill 2016, however, we have struck one where not only does the government position disagree with him but also so do I.

The legalisation of cannabis for medicinal purposes has been an interesting public debate to follow. Having had a small period of time in my professional career working in the pharmaceutical industry, I started off as a little bit of a sceptic, if only because I was becoming more familiar with the way that more commercial or more substantial research went into developing modern medicines. But I should say also that my mind was open when I started to hear some of the stories and saw some of the research that had been undertaken. This issue has been an example of a strong public campaign led by people who have acted very responsibly but occasionally, from what I have gathered in the media, have had to act technically illegally to bring this matter to public attention while doing their absolute utmost to care for a loved one, in particular, who might be suffering an illness which this product can be used to treat.

Underpinning the change that has happened in a number of our states, and reflected in Commonwealth legislation earlier this year and again today, is the fact that there has been this increasing awareness of the use of these products in treating conditions for which insufficient treatments are available, or treating conditions in a better way—particularly in dealing with end-of-life issues. I understand that from what I have read; I have not made myself aware of the technical and scientific analysis.

I will also reflect on what Senator Macdonald said earlier, that on more than one occasion in this section of the parliamentary schedule the members opposite, while they will support the legislation put forward by government, they will, as reflected in the contribution by Senator Gallagher, somehow contrive to come up with some sort of partisan political critique. As someone who has handled this particular part of the schedule from the other side of the chamber in opposition as well, I must say that it gets a little wearying, because this is the section where legislation has primarily been agreed to by both sides and we try to facilitate its passage. It does get a little wearing when you hear contrived and confected outrage, or accusations of political malfeasance or incompetence, merely because, in this case, there is a piece of legislation coming forward that follows the legislation earlier this year—that progresses from that and actually puts into practice the stated policy of the government and, I believe in this case, of the opposition. At this point, I will turn my mind and contribution to outlining that.

There are two bills here today: the Narcotic Drugs Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 and the Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Bill 2016. The Narcotic Drugs Legislation Amendment Bill outlines amendments to protect the integrity of the medicinal cannabis scheme. As I outlined before in response to Senator Leyonhjelm's address, while I respect his contribution and viewpoint this process was put in place not to legalise cannabis for recreational purposes but to legalise it for the purposes of medical research and medical treatment. Senator Leyonhjelm quite rightly outlined that cannabis is a crop of significant interest to criminal elements. In my view, there is not the public support to make a radical change to the legalisation of this illicit product. At the same time, some people have said that it could be legalised and taxed. It is not a view I disagree with, but I doubt that Senator Leyonhjelm might agree with the second part of that statement, which was the taxation part of it!

But this is an important step, and this legislation reflects that it is being legalised for a specific purpose. Organised crime in Australia has had a significant role in illicit drugs. I do not believe, because of the nature of the substances involved, that crime would disappear if those substances were legalised. The nature of the substance can lead people to be dependent on it and to make irrational choices. At the same time, even if a product does become legal it does not necessarily mean that there would not be illicit manufacture and sale of it outside a regulated system.

As senators will recall from the last parliament, earlier this year the Narcotic Drugs Act was amended to create a regime to allow for the first time the cultivation of cannabis in Australia for the purposes of providing access to medicinal cannabis. As the minister outlined at the time, it was important to implement a national licensing system to enable a sustainable supply of safe medicinal cannabis product to Australian patients for the future. An important element of such a system, as Senator Leyonhjelm did outline—albeit disagreeing with it—in his contribution, is ensuring that only those who are fit and proper persons can be granted a licence.

The Narcotic Drugs Legislation Amendment Bill contains additional amendments to the Narcotic Drugs Act to protect sensitive law-enforcement information used in making licensing decisions so that infiltration by criminal elements into this industry and scheme can be prevented. I think that is an objective that most would agree with. Protecting sensitive law enforcement information provided by law enforcement agencies ensures against its improper release, which could have the effect of disrupting criminal investigations, revealing law-enforcement intelligence gathering and, indeed, revealing investigative techniques. The worst-case scenario, of course, is endangering the lives or health of possible informants or other sources of information.

It is critical to ensure that participants in the medicinal cannabis scheme are of good character and repute. This is an important part of the antidiversion controls for the scheme, and allows the Commonwealth to comply with its obligations under the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961.

Senator Leyonhjelm quite rightly mentioned the poppy industry. I have some familiarity with that, having worked for GlaxoSmithKline when they had a substantial part of the Tasmanian poppy plantation and having visited their facility at La Trobe, which then of course ships over to Port Fairy in the old Glaxo powdered milk factory for production of products that are sent right around the world. I might add that it is an outstanding example of Australian innovation, investment and R&D. There were some genuinely innovative new products conceived and invented out of research that was done in Australia and overseas but led by the very high grade production of poppies that came out of Tasmania led by two firms. I think it is a good thing that that potential production is now expanding—or at least, last I heard, was under consideration to be expanded—to the mainland.

It would be a significant risk if Australia's reputation and ability to market those products based on our secure growing environment was put at risk. I note Senator Leyonhjelm's contribution that he did not think that would happen, but I think there would be a lot of Tasmanian farmers and workers at Port Fairy and other parts of Australia involved in the industry who would be very concerned if there was a regulatory risk. It is a very important sector. It is very important to our medical and bioscience sector as well because it represents an important element of investment and part of the critical mass in that sector in Australia.

The antidiversion regime around the poppies is very effective and is not just about police or formal monitoring; it is also about community attitudes. I know of stories in Tasmania where, if someone has pulled over—someone who is visiting might have wandered into a poppy field to try to grab a poppy, because they are not securely fenced and are grown in fields—that person will be reported. A local might drive by and will let the local police know. That person will actually be visited or followed up to make sure they were not running in and trying to grab a quantity of illegal product. That sort of community attitude that protects the integrity of the poppy-growing industry is very important. I think it is fair to say that there might not be the same community attitude around cannabis partly because cannabis is also substantially easier to grow and to harvest or put to use for the illicit purposes that are outside the agreed purpose that the parliament has relayed and are instead, as Senator Leyonhjelm has described, recreational. That is not the purpose of this law, and I think that is an important point to make.

The Commonwealth is working with law enforcement agencies from all jurisdictions to put in place arrangements for the sharing of information around the suitability of licensed applicants. The Commonwealth accepts that there are limitations to what types of information can be shared through such arrangements but remains committed to protecting the integrity of the scheme.

The primary purpose of the Narcotic Drugs Legislation Amendment Bill is to put in place protection for information provided by law enforcement agencies used in decision-making under the act. These protections prevent the disclosure of sensitive law enforcement information, the improper release of which could have the effect of disrupting investigations; revealing intelligence gathering techniques, investigative techniques or other sources; or potentially even, as I mentioned, exposing the lives or health of people involved in criminal investigations to risk. Leaks of this type of information can have serious implications for the effectiveness of our law enforcement agencies, and so it is in the public interest to prevent this from occurring.

The provisions in the bill prevent the release of sensitive law enforcement information to the applicant, to their lawyers and to the public at large when decisions are being made on whether to grant or revoke licences. The bill also carries protections against release of this information during related tribunal and court proceedings. The bill creates offences with harsh penalties for revealing sensitive law enforcement information except within some very narrow confines, including, for example, where it is necessary to allow its use for the proper administration of the Narcotic Drugs Act licensing provisions.

The bill also includes provisions to allow the secretary to refuse to grant a licence where the applicant has provided false or misleading information, to provide for the making of standards and guidelines to support detailed elements of the scheme, to allow for the revocation of licences and permits where applicable standards are not met and to allow for the supply of cannabis seeds grown in the course of medicinal cannabis research to be supplied to other cultivator licence holders for further propagation purposes.

In February this year, the previous parliament supported the introduction of legislation to enable the legal cultivation of cannabis for medicinal purposes in order to supply Australian patients and comply with our international obligations under the single convention on narcotic drugs. These amendments are necessary so that licences are only issued to persons who will work to meet these objectives. The risk of criminal elements diverting precious medicines to illicit uses is too significant. This would be detrimental to the patients who would benefit from the availability of medicinal cannabis and would mean that the government sanctioned system would be creating another—or greater—public health risk.

Without this bill, law enforcement agencies around the country will be reluctant to engage with the Commonwealth in providing the necessary information to manage those risks. These agencies understand and support the need for this cultivation scheme but they rightly can only participate fully if doing so would not compromise their own activities—and I think that would be a matter in which they would have strong public support.

The cannabis cultivation and production licensing scheme commenced on 30 October this year. It was intended that these amendments commence at the same time to ensure that the scheme endorsed by parliament earlier this year can operate effectively. A slight delay in the commencement of these amendments should not adversely affect the operation of the framework. However, any prolonged delay could adversely affect the protection of the sensitive information held by the Secretary of the Department of Health and, therefore, law enforcement agencies may not be willing to provide such information.

Senator Leyonhjelm was correct when he said this was a regulatory regime around medicinal cannabis being put to use for a very limited purpose. This necessary amendment legislation follows from the scheme set up earlier in the year. Unlike what Senator Gallagher outlined, it is merely—as we do with tax law and other laws—a reflection of constantly fine-tuning the operation of regulatory regimes where they need to be amended, where they need to reflect the needs of other agencies. In this case, we are of course dependent upon agencies at other levels of government over which the Commonwealth has no constitutional authority. Therefore, this particular regime will ensure that there is the ability for those agencies to cooperate with the Commonwealth.

I commend the bills to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.