Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor will not be opposing these bills, but the bills are only necessary because of problems and issues with the government's handling of the legislation surrounding the national scheme.

In February this year, parliament passed the Narcotic Drugs Amendment Bill 2016, which allowed for the establishment of a national scheme for access to medicinal cannabis. Labor did support that legislation at the time. We had been very much at the forefront of a push for a national scheme so that we could ensure that access to medicinal cannabis was equal regardless of where you lived across this vast country. But here we are now, some six months later, and we learn through this legislation of existing loopholes and errors that these bills have been drafted to fix. When you look at what those errors or loopholes are, it is very clear that these issues should have been looked at earlier, and should have been identified through the earlier phases of the work that was done on the bill passed back in February this year. These are things such as the need to protect sensitive law enforcement information that is available to determine whether an applicant for a cannabis licence is a fit and proper person—that should have been foreseen; the need to guard against cannabis licences transferring from one person to another, for example, when a business changes hands—again, this could have been foreseen in earlier phases of the work; and the fact that enabling laws were required to recover the cost of regulating the new medicinal cannabis industry. All of these things should have been part of earlier phases of policy work prior to the original legislation coming into force.

We know that these issues—as identified and as covered off in this amending bill—could have real consequences. The Minister for Health herself has said:

It is important that the government is able to communicate on the full regulatory costs of this scheme as soon as possible in order to allow potential applicants to plan their businesses and complete their applications.

But here we are, some time after—in fact, 12 days after—the start of the national scheme on 30 October.

We will support these bills because they address some of those problems that have been identified, and because Labor supports the need for a national scheme. That is why we supported the original legislation in February. For some, that decision could have been controversial, but Labor was driven by the science and the compassion, particularly of those individuals have been lobbying hard for these laws to be put in place. We firmly believe the time has come for a national scheme.

This proposed legislation addresses some problems with that national scheme. It is now over to the government to get everything in order to make sure that the national scheme works, and that it is subjected to no further delays. We support these bills. We wish that these problems had been dealt with earlier, in the February legislation, but we accept that the problems were identified later and that these bills address those problems. As such, we will be supporting the bills today.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this bill, the Narcotic Drugs Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 and the related bill. These two bills are very important and, as the previous speaker has said, they complete the legislation necessary in relation to medicinal cannabis.

The senators in this chamber might recall that the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee was referred this bill in the last parliament. It was a private member's bill submitted, as I recall, by Senator Di Natale and it was a rather complex bill. The committee took some time, and I think we held inquiries in three or four different places throughout the country, investigating medicinal cannabis. The committee was persuaded—relatively easily, I might say—by the evidence that came before us that, with the proper safeguards, medicinal cannabis would be a useful addition to the suite of drugs, tools and procedures available to Australian health practitioners to deal with some illnesses. The committee was persuaded by a number of very telling pieces of evidence from people who spoke about their family's involvement. People were telling us that they were breaking the law—illegally sourcing cannabis—and they did not care. In fact, I do recall that as a committee we warned a couple of people. We said, 'Perhaps you'd rather give your evidence in camera; perhaps you'd rather not give the evidence at all,' because they were effectively conceding that they were breaking the law by using medicinal cannabis that had been imported from overseas or obtained locally in some cases. To a person, people said to us: 'Thanks for the warning, but this has been so beneficial to a member of our family that we don't care. If the police want to arrest us as we leave here, let them do it.' That was because medicinal cannabis is the only drug that has given their loved ones relief. There was quite a bit of that evidence and, as I said, the committee was persuaded that the idea was a good one.

There were some reservations about the complex nature of the bill—and I mentioned that it was a complex private member's bill. I mean no disrespect to Senator Di Natale. As an opposition member in this chamber he does not have access to the resources that governments have when preparing bills. The committee looked into the various provisions of the bill very, very carefully and, as I recall, our suggestion was that the bill perhaps not be passed because of some difficulties with the technical aspects of it. But the committee recommended to the government that it take it over, and I have to say all credit to Senator Di Natale, who did not object to the committee's proposition that the government take over the bill or introduce its own bill for the long-term purposes of allowing the use of medicinal cannabis under very strictly controlled conditions that were safe for the users. Madam Acting Deputy President Reynolds—I think you were a member of that committee, from memory—we were pleased to support Senator Di Natale's bill in its concept but not in its exact detail.

As a result of that, all credit then goes to the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Sussan Ley, who understood and accepted the broad recommendations of the committee that the time had come for medicinal cannabis to be available in Australia. She and her department then embarked upon the process of drawing up the legislation, getting it before parliament and having it pass through parliament. I heard what the previous speaker said, rather disingenuously, when she criticised the government for not getting the first bill right and having to come back with the two bills before us: the Narcotic Drugs Legislation Amendment Bill and the Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Bill. With due respect to the previous speaker, I think she was just having a bit of a slash. Labor, even though they agree with the bills, cannot allow them to go through without having something nasty to say about the government, so I guess we can excuse her for that rather partisan comment. These bills actually are the completion of the suite.

I have to say I have been surprised at the number of Australians who are interested in this whole subject. I knew from the committee hearings that people benefited from medicinal cannabis. They gave very substantial and very persuasive evidence. But since then, in particular up my way—and I understand this happens everywhere around Australia—I have heard that there are a lot of enterprising farmers who want to be part of a new growth industry of medicinal cannabis.

You can never raise this subject without smiling. I remember I inappropriately said—it was only a joke but you should not joke about this—at one stage during the course of this: 'Come up to North Queensland. You don't need to cultivate. There is plenty up there growing wild that you could use.' But the growth of medicinal cannabis requires a very special process. The evidence given to us told us that medicinal cannabis, as many of you know who may have smoked it in the past—I have to say I am probably the one person in Australia that for no particular reason has never, ever smoked marijuana.

Senator Williams interjecting—

You too, Senator Williams. I probably would have if I had been around somewhere it might have been, but I never did.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You didn't inhale?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I did not even inhale. I never did it. It was never in an area where I could have done it. And, of course, I was a solicitor in a small country town and upholding the law. I remember I used to defend young people when, in those early days, the possession of just one seed would send them to jail, and if they worked for the government it was an automatic loss of their job. As a young solicitor I used to defend a lot of young people who, unfortunately, had obviously given something by someone. They did not know what it was. The seed had dropped out of their pocket and the police had found them and arrested them. We used to have quite some fun. I defended so many of these people—some successfully and some not successfully, I have to confess—that the police thought at one stage that I was in the business. I am sure this is very interesting to anyone who might be listening to this, but I remember my flat in those days before I was married used to be sort of party central in my small country town. I remember that one day the police cordoned off the flat. They were going to raid this party we were having. It went astray when someone went out to relieve themselves and came across these police hiding in the grass sort of thing. That was a bit of a joke, and I used to joke with the policemen when I saw them in court next time. I can assure them all these days after that there was no distribution, or even evidence as I was aware, of the use of marijuana. That gets me off the track of these bills.

The purpose of the Narcotic Drugs Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 is to put in place protection for information provided by law enforcement agencies used in decision-making under the Narcotic Drugs Act. These protections prevent disclosure of sensitive law enforcement information provided by law enforcement agencies, the improper release of which could have the effect of disrupting criminal investigations revealing law enforcement intelligence gathering and investigative techniques or of the endangering lives of the informants and witnesses.

Madam Acting Deputy President, I know you understand and I think most senators understand that we are dealing with a narcotic drug in the wrong hands—clearly in Australia there are too many illegal narcotic drugs in the wrong hands. This bill is setting out to make sure that we do not make it easier for criminal elements to do things or get information that will help their vile trade. We want to make sure that those who are using the cannabis for medicinal purposes are able to properly grow it. I started to say that there are many people I know, including a very good organisation up in Mareeba-Atherton area of Queensland, who are seriously looking into and in fact have prepared for the growing of medicinal cannabis under very strict conditions. They have put a lot of science and effort into this work. I think, last time I spoke to them, they were working closely with the government to make sure that all the i's were dotted and the t's were crossed, and that is the way it has to be.

I also started to say that, for those of you who have smoked the drug, you know that it has two elements. One of the elements is the good part, speaking in simple language that I understand—I do not understand the technicalities, but there is a good part of cannabis that provides the medicinal relief that we had evidence of—and then there is the bad part of the cannabis plant. They have technical names, which I knew at the drop of a hat during the inquiry but I have forgotten now. The bad part of the plant is the bit that gives you the lift or sends you away on a trip when you stand in one place. I was told that, over the years, the bad guys, the criminals, used to cultivate and manipulate the growth of these drugs so that the bad part—the part that gives you the lift—increased in percentage in the plant. It was good for their trade and for those who wanted to be spaced out by smoking cannabis. They told us that the plant in its natural form was about 45 per cent good staff and 55 per cent bad stuff. So it is important that, when you grow cannabis for medicinal purposes, it is genetically modified to have the correct elements in the plant.

Without the bill before us, law enforcement agencies would be reluctant to engage with the Commonwealth in providing the necessary information to manage the risks. The agencies understand and support the need for this cultivation scheme, but they only participate fully if doing so will not compromise their own law enforcement activities. The amendments complement the amendments to the Narcotic Drugs Act that this parliament supported in February this year, in the last parliament. The recent amendments implement a medicinal cannabis framework in order to allow Australian patients to access medicinal cannabis products in a way that will allow compliance with our international obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. That is something that came up during the inquiry. Madame Acting Deputy President Reynolds, as you will recall, we understood that particularly the then Liberal government in New South Wales was well in advance on work on medicinal cannabis, but some of the scientists and researchers who gave evidence indicated that they were a bit reluctant because they were dealing with a prohibited plant—namely, cannabis sativa—and, although they were using it for research purposes and continued to do it, they did not understood that they might have been at some risk. Other researchers indicated that they would have been doing more except that they were not prepared to take the risk of being arrested and ruining their careers.

The New South Wales government, as I recall, had given certain exemptions or assurances, but it became essential for the Commonwealth to get involved because of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. There was another international convention that only the Commonwealth could deal with. That is why it became essential for the Commonwealth to have overall control, overall involvement or supervision of what the states were already doing. Victoria had already started as well and, since then, my own state of Queensland has allowed, through state legislation, the growing of properly attributed medicinal cannabis, cannabis sativa.

These amendments are necessary so that licences are only issued to persons who will work to meet the objectives of compliance with our international obligations and are not available to the bad guys. The risk of criminal elements diverting precious medicines to illicit uses is too great. This would be detrimental to patients who would benefit from the availability of medicinal cannabis and would mean that a government sanctioned system could be creating another public health risk. We do not want that to happen; nobody wants that to happen. So the bill is to address those issues.

It also includes provisions to allow the secretary to refuse to grant a licence where the applicant has provided false or misleading information. So, if there is a connection to the criminal gangs and people mislead the authorities with information, the secretary will be able to refuse the licence. It also allows the secretary to refuse to grant a licence, provides for the making of standards and guidelines, allows for the revocation of licences and permits where applicable standards are not met, and allows for cannabis seeds grown in the course of medicinal cannabis research to be supplied to other cultivator licence holders for propagation purposes. So this bill does address the sorts of things that I have been talking about. Minor technical amendments are also included in this bill to address the amendments we made in the last parliament.

The cultivation licensing scheme commenced on 30 October this year, and that is why it is important this bill is dealt with today. I am pleased to hear about the support from the Labor Party and, I am sure, the Greens—and I imagine Senator Leyonhjelm, who had an interest in this committee as well, will indicate his view on the bill shortly. It is intended that these amendments commence at the same time as those in the Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Bill 2016 to ensure the scheme endorsed by parliament in February can operate efficiently.

The Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Bill is the other of these two bills. I will briefly refer to it. It simply seeks to recover the direct costs that government incurs in regulating the medicinal cannabis industry through both direct fee recovery and imposition of levies. Charges or levies under this bill include those where costs cannot otherwise be reasonably assigned directly to a particular licence holder or applicant.

In conclusion, I urge support for the bill. I think those who advocated long and hard for the use of medicinal cannabis will be encouraged by this bill. The fact that we will grow it and produce it in Australia is another plus for us, and this bill will help to bring that to fruition as soon as possible.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to 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.