Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Criminal Code and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Commonwealth Restrictions on Cannabis) Bill 2018, this bill introduced by our colleague Senator Leyonhjelm, who said at the time that it was informed by the principle that 'adults should be free to make their own choices as long as they do not harm others'—as long as they do not harm others. That's a phrase I will come back to. Accordingly, this bill removes offences and civil penalty provisions in Commonwealth law for dealing with cannabis. The explanatory memorandum outlines that the bill would 'allow any state or territory government to legalise and regulate cannabis', and that it would address several issues, including the casting of cannabis users who might otherwise be law-abiding citizens as criminals, and the subsequent pressure on the criminal justice system. It is estimated that legalising cannabis would reduce the annual Commonwealth law enforcement expenditure by $100 million per year and increase GST revenue by $300 million a year. The explanatory memorandum states:

Cannabis use is less harmful than alcohol use and tobacco use. Legalising cannabis would improve access to cannabis for recreational, medicinal, industrial and other purposes. Access for medicinal purposes is currently hamstrung through excessive regulation.

The effect of the bill would be to amend a number of Commonwealth laws that prohibit and control cannabis, and they include the Criminal Code of 1995, the Criminal Code Regulations 2002, the Crimes (Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances) Act 1990, the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 and the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989.

The bill was introduced in the Senate in May 2018 and was immediately referred to a committee. The Senate Selection of Bills Committee said:

As the first legislation to propose the removal of Commonwealth restrictions on cannabis, there is a case to examine: the merits of legalisation, law enforcement issues, extradition issues, constitutionality, treaty issues, trade rule issues, Commonwealth-state issues, and budget issues.

The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, reported to the Senate on 17 August with one recommendation, and one recommendation only, and that was that the Senate not pass this bill. The bill's proposed amendments to the Narcotic Drugs Act would dismantle the very carefully constructed regulations on the cultivation, production and manufacture of medicinal cannabis introduced to the Narcotic Drugs Act in late 2016.

First, the effects would be to leave the matter of cannabis regulation and control almost entirely to the states and territories. Enactment would not in itself legalise cannabis for recreational use but might lead to the states and territories considering such a move separately, of their own accord. Individual jurisdictions might also take different approaches to authorising cannabis and cannabis-derived products for medical and scientific use.

Second, the potential effects of the proposed amendments would be that Australia's cultivation and production of cannabis for both medicinal and scientific purposes would not be compliant with its international treaty obligations as provided for by the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Without Commonwealth regulation consistent with Australia's international obligations, states and territories providing for cultivation of cannabis for medicinal purposes would affect Australia's ability to present itself as compliant with the single convention. In turn, this could have adverse reputational implications for Australia's licit poppy industry, with medium-term risks to Australia's approved status as a major supplier of poppy straw in a timely, controlled manner. In addition, this bill is not supported by the AMA, the RACGP, Painaustralia, the Alcohol and Drug Foundation or Western Australia Police Force.

I want to talk very briefly—before going into a little bit more detail on that issue—about the progress and expansion of medical cannabis, and its use and production under the Liberal-National government. The Liberal-National government has taken action to assist doctors who believe that their patients may benefit from using medicinal cannabis, including terminally ill patients. Under this government, we have set up a cannabis licensing scheme to allow the cultivation and manufacture of medicinal cannabis products that are safe for use by patients under appropriate medical supervision. In fact, in February last year, the Minister for Health announced that the government would facilitate faster access by qualified doctors to medicinal cannabis products for patients with the necessary approvals. Until domestic production meets local needs, the government will authorise controlled importation by approved providers from approved international sources to enable an interim inventory in Australia. As at 20 July this year, 42 domestic licences have been granted: 19 for the cultivation of cannabis for medicinal use, 10 for cultivation for research and 13 for the manufacture of medicinal cannabis products. Patients are also accessing medicinal cannabis products in a very timely manner via the patient pathways that this government has put into place. So far, 1,375 patients have been approved to use prescribed medical cannabis since 1 July 2016. So, as you can see, Acting Deputy President, the cultivation and regulation of the medical cannabis industry has expanded and developed significantly under this government in a supervised, quality-controlled approach to pain relief and other medical applications.

There are numerous reasons why this bill cannot be supported, and they are not only, as I said, numerous but also varied. The first is increased harm to users. That's something that was well examined in the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee report into this legislation. The Department of Health in particular pointed out that there would potentially be increased harm for users with the passage of this bill. They said that, while many Australians may view cannabis as harmless, almost a quarter of Australia's drug and alcohol treatment services are being provided to people identifying cannabis as their principal drug of concern. That's roughly the same as the number of treatment episodes for amphetamine use. Cannabis use has been demonstrated to have significant health outcomes, including problems with memory and learning; addiction; decreased motivation and concentration; anxiety; increased risk of respiratory diseases; paranoia; and, in some cases, psychosis—again, an issue I would like to come back to.

The Royal Australian College of GPs submitted that, while there were benefits to some patients using medicinal cannabis, its recreational consumption had very poor outcomes in several ways, including the risk of mental health problems and cannabis use disorder. Legalising the recreational use of cannabis can also have significant negative impacts on public safety issues, especially driver impairment and work health and safety problems, which have to be carefully considered against the potential benefits that regulating the sale of cannabis might bring. The Royal Australian College of GPs cautioned against the legalisation of recreational cannabis, as it would likely encourage the use of a drug that would result in increased demands on the Australian healthcare system. But it's not just increased harm for users; there is also concern that it would exacerbate the health and safety risk for the families and the children of users, and communities more generally. The notion that illicit drug use is a victimless crime and that everyone should be free to do exactly what they want with their bodies disregards the web of social interactions that constitute human existence. Affected by an individual's illicit drug use are children, parents, grandparents, friends, colleagues, workplaces, victims of drugged drivers, crime victims, elder abuse victims, sexual victims and patients made sicker by medical marijuana. Illicit drug use is no less victimless than is alcoholism.

Adolescents, too, are a particularly vulnerable group. During that important period of neurodevelopment where educational achievement is essential and long-term life outcomes are affected, smoking cannabis has been shown to negatively affect attention, memory and learning, and reduced intellectual function can last for days or even weeks after the acute effects of the drugs have worn off.

There were also some submissions to that inquiry regarding the effects of cannabis use—even moderate cannabis use—on unborn children. Data emerged from an analysis in Colorado, where cannabis use has been legalised, that suggested that, of all the fastest growing anomalies, the overall rate of congenital heart defects and total defects have almost doubled since cannabis was legalised in that US state. The Western Australia Police Force provided some very interesting evidence to the committee that indicated that, following cannabis legislation in Colorado, youth use of cannabis has increased around 20 per cent, cannabis related traffic deaths have increased by 48 per cent and cannabis related emergency department rates have increased by 49 per cent. These are significant statistics that cannot be overlooked when we're talking about the civil liberties aspect of cannabis use.

The third argument is that it would seriously compromise Australia's medical cannabis industry, including removing the Commonwealth oversight of quality, availability and market regulation, which would affect medical cannabis users. In its submission to the committee, the department set out a number of ways that the bill would not only negatively affect Australia's domestic cannabis regime but also compromise our international treaty commitments and our medicinal opiate industry. The department said the bill would drastically alter the Commonwealth's oversight of our medicinal cannabis production, manufacture and distribution and that the effect would be to leave the matter of cannabis regulation and control almost entirely to the states and territories. Enactment would in fact not legalise cannabis for recreational use but may lead to the states and territories considering how to do so separately. Individual jurisdictions would also take different approaches to authorising cannabis and cannabis-derived products for medical and scientific use.

While the Australian community expects there to be a licit source of cannabis for medical use, the bill could theoretically mean that there are no levels of control on the availability of cannabis. For example, medicines at the moment have advertising, labelling, packaging and control requirements designed to improve customer safety and manage medical doses. In removing cannabis from the Poisons Standard, cannabis could potentially become unscheduled. While this is untested in law, it could potentially become a listed complementary medicine. However, listed complementary medicines can only contain certain low-risk ingredients—and some therapeutically active substances in cannabis would not fall into that particular category—and can only make claims such as health maintenance and health enhancement for non-serious, self-limiting conditions. As a result, medicines containing cannabis would not be able to be marketed for things such as palliative care, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, chronic pain, multiple sclerosis or epilepsy, where they can potentially do so much good. They would also potentially contravene Australia's international treaty obligations, compromising our capacity to export medicinal cannabis and undermining the local industry producing and processing poppies to make medicinal opiates for global markets. Producing medical opiates is a growing industry which is dependent on Australia's adherence to the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which could potentially be compromised.

I want to touch on this issue of civil liberties because I believe this argument is a flawed one. The argument that illicit drug use is an inalienable human right rests on a faulty assumption of individual freedom that fails to balance freedom with a responsibility to others in the community. This is something that I would like to come back to in what time I have left.

I'm concerned the savings to the cost of law enforcement are greatly exaggerated also. There was some evidence from the Western Australia Police Force that suggested counterparts in the US Drug Enforcement Administration have advised that, in places where cannabis has been legalised, it has in fact enabled organised crime networks to legitimise their previously illegal cannabis businesses and continue to sell or traffic cannabis on the unregulated black market, where it remains cheaper and avoids being subject to tax.

There are also potential jurisdictional issues. This is particularly important. What you could find is that cannabis is legal in one state but not in another. The disconnect between Commonwealth, state and territory laws would lead to a greater financial impost on state and territory law enforcement.

However, I think the most compelling evidence given during the committee phase was that the bill is premature. For instance, the AMA suggested that, while a wider debate on cannabis legislation reform is timely, the bill is premature and fails to recognise that efforts to decriminalise cannabis may be detrimental to some groups within the population. More nuanced deliberations must occur in relation to the benefits of ending criminal penalties associated with personal cannabis use as well as the need to better protect the groups of people who are most vulnerable to the deleterious effects of cannabis. The AMA also has significant concerns about the lack of capacity within the drug and alcohol treatment sector in Australia and that many individuals at this stage have difficulty accessing the treatments and support they require at the right time.

The Australian Alcohol and Drug Foundation agreed with this analysis that the bill is premature and that a decision to consider changing the legal status of cannabis deserves to be undertaken in the context of a critical and comprehensive review of all relevant matters and careful consideration of all options. Questions of drug policy are very complex and involve scientific evidence, medical expertise, fears, and volatile emotions and should not be decided in haste. The Australian Alcohol and Drug Foundation believed that a period of extensive community discussion is required that would allow the public and experts from various relevant disciplines to voice their views and debate the issues prior to a decision being made by policymakers. In this place our primary responsibility is to the next generation, and we must never underestimate the trust placed in us, by those who are younger than ourselves, to set an example and do what is right by them. I would ask the chamber to consider what example it is that we are setting today.

A Canadian report from September 2018 stated that the legalisation of cannabis gave youths a 'false sense of security'. It stated that it could put youths under a misconception that legalisation means safety. And it's amazing: I look around the chamber today and there is a bunch of very young people looking down on us from the gallery as we have this debate—I want you to know that when we discuss this stuff it's because of you; we're trying to do right by you, the next generation. The report continues on to outline that there is an increased risk of psychosis among youths smoking cannabis, particularly those with a family history of serious mental illness, like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Is this really the message we want to send to our youth—that we support legislation that allows for this? Do we want to say that we support mental illness? The government clearly does not. In fact, we support measures to combat it at every stage, like our announcement yesterday for increased funding for headspace.

And the facts don't stop there. An article in The Australian not that long ago, in April this year, showed that there are consistent links between cannabis use and psychotic disorders, such as schizophrenia. The article was about a study reported by University of New South Wales psychiatrist Matthew Large, who found that cannabis use is associated with an earlier-age onset of psychotic disorders. The ABC News team found that teen cannabis users are more likely to quit school or to attempt suicide. It's unfathomable that anybody in this place could support a bill that increases the likelihood of teen suicide and youths dropping out of school. The study, from Australia and New Zealand, combined data on 3,765 participants who used cannabis frequently before the ages of 17. The study examined whether the teenagers completed high school, obtained a university degree, were dependent on cannabis, used other illicit drugs, attempted suicide, suffered depression or were on welfare. It was an extensive report. The study found that teenagers who were daily users of cannabis before the age of 17 were more than 60 per cent less likely to complete high school or obtain a degree and seven times more likely to commit suicide.

If we in this place are to fulfil our duty to the next generation, then we cannot pass this bill. Senator Leyonhjelm spoke of the courage to pass the right laws and said that it is rare in this place. Well, the government has the courage to oppose this bill for the sake of generations to come.