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

On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I introduced my bill removing Commonwealth restrictions on cannabis. The Liberal Democrats have called for the legalisation of cannabis for both medicinal and recreational use since the party's formation in 2001. We are a party of consistency and principle, not a party that blows with the political breeze. In fact, for years the Liberal Democrats was the only political party in the Australian parliament to support the legalisation of cannabis. Until recently, the policy of the Greens has been to keep cannabis illegal except for medicinal use. This reflected the core Greens' traits of elitism, wowserism and authoritarianism. The Liberal Democrats have gone it alone to legislate to legalise cannabis. I prepared the bill and introduced the bill before us today. I had a Senate committee thoroughly review the bill, and now I devote what little time I have in control of the Senate agenda to debating this important bill.

I don't pretend that we will legalise cannabis today, but the bill encapsulates the steps that need to be taken to get to the outcome we need. It's the work of a serious political party, not a party concerned only with appearances. I will first describe what the bill does, and after that I will indicate why it's important that it pass.

The bill is called the Criminal Code and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Commonwealth Restrictions on Cannabis) Bill 2018. It is about the removal of Commonwealth restrictions on cannabis. It doesn't purport to legalise cannabis across the nation, because we live in a federation. Questions of criminal law should ultimately be matters for the states. The bill does not start until 12 months after royal assent to give the states an opportunity to react to the removal of Commonwealth restrictions. I would hope that at least some states would react by legalising cannabis in their jurisdiction, but ultimately that is a matter for each state.

The bill is predominantly about the Commonwealth criminal law. It ensures that cannabis is no longer listed as a controlled drug or a border controlled drug or a serious drug. This ensures that dealings in cannabis no longer carry the risk of a life sentence and fines in excess of $1 million. Penalties like that should be reserved for murderers. For simply dealing in cannabis such penalties are a huge injustice. The bill's removal of cannabis from the Commonwealth criminal law includes the removal of prohibitions on cannabis imports and exports. Consistent with this, I have arranged for an amendment to my bill to remove references to cannabis in regulations that list prohibited imports and prohibited exports.

The bill's removal of cannabis from the Commonwealth criminal law also makes redundant those concessions for cannabis in the drug offences of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982. My bill removes those redundant concessions and leaves in place the offences which will only apply to drugs other than cannabis. These remaining drug offences in the Defence Force Discipline Act reverse the onus of proof. This is not something I support, but that is the law as it stands, and the bill before us today is only concerned with removing restrictions on cannabis. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee concluded that my bill was inserting a reversal of the onus of proof into the law, but this was a misreading of my bill and the law as it stands. The reversal of the onus of proof is an existing element of the Defence Force Discipline Act.

To avoid prohibition through the back door, my bill prevents the Department of Health from listing cannabis on its poisons standard, a regulation that restricts the availability of various substances. In a concession to the Department of Health and its role of signalling effective therapies to the community, I have also had prepared an amendment to my bill that would provide an exception. My amendment would allow the Department of Health to list on its poisons standard certain cannabis preparations if a proponent seeks such a listing and the department agrees that the preparation has therapeutic use.

Finally, my bill removes cannabis from the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967, which is an act in the Health portfolio. This act currently contains offences, punishable by up to 10 years of imprisonment, for dealings in drugs that are not licensed under the act. With the removal of cannabis from the Commonwealth criminal law, it is appropriate to also ensure that dealings in cannabis do not give rise to criminal penalties under the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967. The Department of Health could still issue licences for dealings in cannabis that it approves of, such as for the preparation of medicinal cannabis, but there would be no criminal consequences for dealings in cannabis without such licences.

For the passage of this bill through the federal parliament, I expect we would need more Liberal Democrats elected to the Senate. Having the courage to make the right decisions is not very common in this place. If passed, the act would not legalise cannabis. To fully legalise cannabis, we would probably need more Liberal Democrats elected at the state level as well. Only then would Australians whose drug of choice is cannabis, rather than alcohol or tobacco, be freed from unwarranted harassment.

Let me now turn to some reasons why it ought to pass and why the states and territories should respond with their own legislation to make cannabis legal. This bill has been subject to an inquiry which highlighted some of the objections to cannabis legalisation. The inquiry was told that our opiate exports would be in jeopardy if we legalised cannabis. This is hysterical nonsense. Cannabis is not prohibited in countries that compete with us in the cultivation of opiates for medicinal use. It is effectively legal in Spain, deregulated in Portugal, freely available in Turkey and India, and available on prescription in the Czech Republic. Each of these countries produces opiates.

We heard that making it legal will lead to more people using cannabis. This is more nonsense. In 2000, Portugal decriminalised the use of all illicit drugs. This means most possession and supply is of comparable seriousness to illegal parking. Analysis by the UK's Home Office found that the health of drug users in Portugal showed a considerable improvement since possession became a health issue, not a criminal one. There was essentially no change in the number of drug users.

After three-quarters of a century of prohibition, it is pretty clear there aren't many people who have been deterred by the law from using cannabis. Cannabis is the most widely used drug in Australia. The National drug strategy household survey 2016 indicated that 35 per cent of Australians surveyed had used cannabis products at some point in their lives: 10.4 per cent over the age of 14 years old had used it within the last 12 months and 4.1 per cent of all Australians had used cannabis within the past week prior to the survey. The largest group of users was concentrated in the 20- to 29-year-old age group. It's not dying out with the baby boomers either. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission says cannabis accounts for the greatest proportion of illicit drug offences in Australia. In 2016-17, there were 77,549 cannabis arrests. That's the second-highest on record, a truly shocking figure.

A growing number of countries have legalised or decriminalised the possession and use of cannabis. In some cases they changed their laws, including in Uruguay, Canada, the Netherlands, Jamaica and parts of the United States. There are a lot more countries that have simply stopped enforcing the law. In fact, notwithstanding the number of arrests, this is occurring in Australia too. The production, sale, possession or use of any form of the cannabis plant for recreational purposes remains prohibited in all Australian states, and yet different penalties apply depending on the state or territory in which the offence took place. In South Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, minor cannabis offences have been decriminalised and attract only civil penalties. Most states and territories offer diversion programs or drug and alcohol treatment programs before criminal sanctions are applied.

Notwithstanding this, no state or territory has yet fully decriminalised cannabis possession and use for recreational purposes. They should, because the policy of prohibition, notwithstanding its patchy enforcement, is an abject failure. This was confirmed by Mr Mick Palmer, former Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, who gave evidence to the committee inquiring into this bill. He said:

… the reality is that, contrary to frequent assertions, drug law enforcement has had little impact on the Australian drug market or for that matter, on the drug markets of most, if not all, countries in the world.

Australian police are better resourced, better trained, and more effective than ever and yet their impact on the drug trade, on any objective assessment, has been minimal.

In fact, a compelling argument in favour of legalisation is that it would deprive organised crime of a major source of income and relieve police of the costs of finding and destroying illicit crops. Of the $1.5 billion spent annually on drug law enforcement, 70 per cent is attributable to cannabis. That's an expense we do not need.

The financial argument doesn't end there either. There's the opportunity for increased tax revenue—something of interest to the big spenders on both sides of this chamber. If its consumption is legal, it will be subject to GST. The Parliamentary Budget Office has estimated this would raise around $300 million a year. Unlike alcohol, cannabis does not make some people violent or encourage them to believe they can sing and dance. A working father who uses cannabis to relax at the end of a work week instead of having a beer is probably better off. But in any case, if the individual's actions affect no-one but themselves, it should not be a matter for the state to legislate upon. Quite simply, governments are not competent and do not have the moral authority to ban something based either on disapproval or on a desire to protect people from their own choices. When the population engages in lawbreaking on the scale found with cannabis, it is clear that the law is wrong, not the population.

The Liberal Democrats are a libertarian party. That means we don't think the government has to declare everything to be either compulsory or prohibited. There should be room for personal decisions and personal responsibility, and that includes making your own mistakes. God knows the government makes its own fair share of mistakes.

I personally would not recommend recreational cannabis use. The inquiry into the bill confirmed that, at least for some people, it would be prudent to avoid cannabis. For similar reasons, I do not recommend alcohol or tobacco consumption, which despite being legal are more harmful than cannabis use. But I'm not a dictator, I'm not your parent and neither is the government, and adults can make up their own minds. Subject to protecting third parties, including children, the Liberal Democrats support legalising all uses of marijuana: medical, recreational and the hemp industry. It is high time we stopped interfering in adult choices. Government opinions are only relevant to those who are incapable of deciding things for themselves. I commend my bill to the Senate.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President Brockman, congratulations on your first day in the chair. This private senator's bill from Senator Leyonhjelm, the Criminal Code and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Commonwealth Restrictions on Cannabis) Bill 2018, would remove restrictions on cannabis use, importation and manufacture under several pieces of federal legislation, including removing the listing of cannabis as a controlled or prohibited drug under the Commonwealth Criminal Code. The stated intention of the bill is to allow state and territory governments to legalise or regulate the use of cannabis, with the expectation that cannabis would be regulated in a similar way to alcohol or tobacco by state or territory governments. In doing so, this bill goes well beyond legalising cannabis for medicinal or therapeutic purposes and would also pave the way for the legalisation of cannabis for recreational, industrial or other uses. The effects of this bill, if it were passed, would include the following: cannabis could be legally imported to Australia; growing, preparing and selling cannabis would be legal under federal law, although it would be subject to any restrictions imposed by states or territories; and the Therapeutic Goods Administration would be prevented from listing cannabis as a poison under the Poisons Standard. The bill would repeal the application of the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 for the manufacture of medicinal cannabis. This would mean that currently licensed manufacturers would not be required to obtain a license for the production and sale of medicinal cannabis.

Labor does not support this bill, primarily because Labor does not support the legalisation of cannabis for recreational use. While cannabis does not have the same addictive properties as alcohol and tobacco, research has shown that some 10 per cent of regular cannabis users become dependent on the drug and that this rate is higher for those who start using it in their teenage years. Some users combine cannabis with tobacco, which can lead to an addiction to tobacco—with all the well-documented negative health impacts of that addiction. One of the greatest health concerns about cannabis is its potential to impact on the mental health of users. There is ample research available that demonstrates that regular cannabis use can increase the risk of psychotic mental illness, including schizophrenia. Again, this risk is increased for those who start using cannabis at a young age.

Addressing mental health issues is an enormous challenge in Australia, particularly the mental health of young Australians, and we are concerned that legalising cannabis for recreational use could well make this problem worse. Labor notes that the Greens party were criticised by the Australian Medical Association in April this year for announcing their support for the legalisation of cannabis for recreational use. The medical community is far from convinced that there will not be irreversible damage done, particularly to the mental health of young people, by making cannabis products more easily accessible. Cannabis use may also increase the risk of car accidents for those who drive while affected, which increases the risk for innocent road users as well.

With respect to medicinal use of cannabis, Labor policy is to work with the state and territory governments to ensure nationally consistent laws which allow lawful access to medicinal cannabis for those who are terminally ill or have other clinically identified medical conditions and where medical cannabis may benefit. If Labor wins government, we have committed that the Commonwealth government will become the national regulator of medicinal cannabis supplied to eligible patients and for research purposes. Labor has also committed to work with state and territory and federal regulators to improve controlled access to medicinal-grade cannabis for legitimate scientific and mental research work. Consistent with this role, under Labor the Commonwealth would establish rules—for licensing one or more producers of cannabis, for supply to medical patients and for research—subject to the best manufacturing practice and best agricultural practice to ensure safety, quality and security in the production and distribution process. In contrast, this bill would remove all requirements for the Commonwealth to license cannabis production by local producers.

While Labor accepts that there are many challenges to reducing the harm caused by illicit drugs, including cannabis, Labor agrees with the Australian Medical Association that this bill, if passed, could do more harm than good. Accordingly, we will not support the bill.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Criminal Code and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Commonwealth Restrictions on Cannabis) Bill 2018. The Greens will support this bill to remove restrictions on cannabis. However, we need to go much further than simply removing those restrictions; we need to have a very detailed plan for how we would legalise cannabis in this country, so that it is more than simply a thought bubble. The reason the Greens support removing criminal restrictions on the use of cannabis is that the war on drugs is a war on people. The current approach to the prohibition of cannabis causes a great deal more harm than it prevents. The approach to illicit drug use in this country has been an unmitigated disaster, and it is about time our political leaders had some courage and recognised that we need to start treating the issue of drug use as a health issue, not as a law-and-order issue. We need to reform our laws and introduce the right regulatory framework to make that vision a reality.

The good news is that governments right around the world are realising that cannabis laws cause much more harm than they're intended to prevent. We've seen huge changes right across the globe, whether it be in the US, Canada or some South American states. New Zealand are about to embark on a referendum on this very issue. The winds of change are sweeping right across the world, and Australia is being left behind. Instead, in this country the government continues to arrest its citizens at an alarming rate for using cannabis. Nearly seven million Australians, well over a third of Australians, have used cannabis at some point in their life. It's something that's being used widely. The greatest proportion of illicit drug arrests across Australia occur because of something that many Australians are doing, some on a daily basis, some occasionally. Illicit drug arrests across Australia have risen from six per cent in 2014, 75,000 people arrested, to nearly 80,000 people arrested the following year.

The stats demonstrate that, despite those arrests, more people are continuing to use it. Despite the current illegality of cannabis, Australians have decided that those laws do not relate to them. Those laws force many decent, law-abiding Australians to buy potentially contaminated cannabis of unknown quality and strength, from drug dealers whose only interest is in people continuing to use that product and, potentially, being redirected into using more harmful illicit substances. We had some debate on the harms associated with cannabis. There is no question: cannabis has potential harms associated with its use. It's a drug like many other drugs, be they legal or illegal, and therefore has a range of effects on human physiology. There is no question about it. We know that the young developing brain should not be exposed to cannabis, in the same way as it shouldn't be exposed to alcohol.

One of the greatest harms associated with cannabis is the way it is consumed. Smoking cannabis is bad for you. Smoking cigarettes—indeed, smoking anything—is bad for people's respiratory physiology. Some people become dependent on cannabis, no question; there is a dependence syndrome associated with cannabis. Cannabis is not a harmless drug; neither is paracetamol. The more interesting question is how harmful it is relative to other substances. There is no doubt in my mind, and in the view of many health professionals, that cannabis is a much safer drug than alcohol, a drug that is currently legal; indeed, many would say our society is awash with alcohol. You can't overdose when it comes to cannabis. You can overdose when it comes to other drugs. Indeed, you can become very unwell and die from alcohol toxicity. People who consume vast quantities of alcohol can aspirate it, and aspiration is a common cause of death amongst young people. That simply doesn't happen when it comes to cannabis. We know that alcohol has a whole range of other effects on people's livers; it can be a cause of liver failure and liver cancer. We know that that's simply not the case when it comes to cannabis. Alcohol has a whole range of effects on the gastrointestinal system—things that aren't seen with cannabis consumption. The reality is, if we're using the standard of cannabis being a harmful drug, then, by that same standard, we should make alcohol illegal. We don't, because we accept that the use of alcohol also comes with a range of benefits to the community. People continue to use it; they do it because they enjoy it, and they'll continue to do it regardless of what policymakers suggest.

But, beyond the relative harm of cannabis compared to alcohol, the more important question is: what are the harms happening right now under our current system? We know those harms are significant. We know that many people are exposed to drugs—as I said earlier—of unknown quality and purity. They are being driven to purchase their drugs through a network of criminal dealers. And what we see is a current system that props up criminality and that redirects resources away from where they're needed, to prosecute these laws which are having no effect deterring people from using the drug. They divert a huge amount of taxpayer money into areas that aren't working, when we could be investing in a whole range of areas that we know do work.

Again, let's be very clear about what we need to do when it comes to cannabis. We need to ensure that our laws reduce harm and reflect the fact that cannabis is actually less harmful than some currently available drugs. Our plan will redefine cannabis as a legal substance in a regulated market. It will ensure that we redirect resources into drug treatment, into drug education and, of course, into the broader health budget. In place of prohibition—in place of the laws that currently make cannabis illegal—we'll create a regulated, adult-use market for legal cannabis. At the heart of our plan is an understanding that people are using it. They will continue to use it. And our job is to reduce the harms associated with that use.

Creating a regulated legal market would bust the business model of criminal drug dealers. It would ensure greater protections for vulnerable cannabis users. It would ensure that people have accurate, up-to-date information about the potential harms associated with those substances. And it would allow for the significant revenue that's currently lining the pockets of criminal syndicates to be invested in our health system. Our plan would establish an Australian cannabis agency, which would draw together state and territory governments, medical experts and regulators. The agency would issue licences for the production of cannabis and for the sale of cannabis, and it would carry out a program of monitoring. It would monitor growers to make sure that people are getting what they believe they're buying based on what's on the label. It would also ensure that the outlets where cannabis products are being sold behave in a way that's consistent with the scheme. The agency would act as a single wholesaler for cannabis: you'd see people producing cannabis—they'd grow it—and government would act as a single wholesaler for that cannabis. Those products would then be sold in plain packaging to retail stores to ensure quality and consistency.

In short, we would have a series of cannabis retail shops which, in the same way as when people are buying alcohol, require ID for entry. The sale of cannabis to anyone under 18 would be prohibited. The cannabis available for sale would be in plain packaging. There would be clear information about the grower, the strain—including the proportions of THC and other cannabinoids—and the colloquial name of the product, and health warnings. Rather than being purchased through a criminal dealer, who has no interest in the welfare of the user, cannabis would be sold by staff who are required to undertake a responsible-sale-of-cannabis course, much like what we do when it comes to alcohol. They would have mental health first aid training. They would ensure that anybody they identified as having a problem with their use is redirected into treatment. That treatment would be well funded with the revenue generated through this scheme. In our plan there would be no advertising or sponsorship for cannabis. We don't want to make the same mistakes that were made in the alcohol industry. We'd be promoting small-scale production and be ensuring that people are getting access to regulated product.

Our plan would support Australians to grow cannabis at home for personal use. Some states already allow this to happen, but we would try to harmonise how this is done so that people can grow a small number of plants in their backyard, providing it's for their own personal use. Those people wouldn't be able to sell what they have grown, because we want to ensure we have a regulated market in the same way as we have for other markets, but those people would be free to grow and produce their own product. Our plan would impose strict penalties on the sale of unlicensed or black market cannabis. If people are going to access regulated product of known quality and purity from a known grower, we have to ensure the market has clear regulations associated with it.

There would continue to be strict penalties for people driving under the influence of cannabis, but they must be driving under the influence of cannabis. Unfortunately, the current situation means we are detecting cannabis in individuals who may have consumed that drug days before they get behind the wheel of a vehicle. The consequence is that we're not making our roads safer; we're simply enforcing prohibition through the back door. As with alcohol, we need to ensure we have standardised testing of people's ability to drive a motor vehicle, but it can't be testing that captures people who may have used the drug previously, maybe days before. That has no bearing whatsoever on their ability to drive a vehicle. We need to test for impairment, not simply for past use.

In our plan, cannabis would be subject to GST as well as a level of federal excise to ensure that the price is broadly similar to the price of cannabis at the moment. As I said earlier, a proportion of that revenue would be redirected into drug treatment. If we did this, we could ensure that not one person in Australia has to wait for a treatment bed and that every single facility is available for people when they need it. Whether somebody's using opiates like heroin, or methamphetamine or other substances, there's no excuse for the fact that people can't get access to treatment when they need it. Legalising cannabis will create a commercial market for its production and sale. The production and cultivation of cannabis will create jobs in regional communities. That is a good thing.

The final aspect of the plan involves the establishment of an advisory committee of experts from across harm reduction, clinical mental health, user advocates, law enforcement and other relevant sectors. We'd commission an independent review of the regulations after two years, with public reporting of all the findings and recommendations. This is a way to ensure that we have a plan that's relevant to all the key constituents, making sure that it's up to date and relevant. So, by the end of this sitting year we're going to be introducing a private member's bill that doesn't simply remove some of the criminal penalties associated with the use of cannabis but also outlines a detailed plan for what a regulated cannabis market would look like here in Australia. The bill will establish the cannabis agency and support all the other aspects of our plan.

We support this legislation, but we need to do much more. We need to drag Australia into the 21st century. We need to look at the lead of those states within the US, to look at Canada, to look at places like Uruguay, to look at Spain, to look at our neighbours across the ditch, in New Zealand. They're all moving in this direction, because they know that our current drug laws don't work; that they turn innocent, law-abiding people into criminals; and that they don't prevent people from using these substances but force them to make choices that are riskier and more harmful. Instead, we're proposing a regulated market that reduces harms, that ensures that people who get into trouble with drug use, whether it be alcohol, cannabis or other illicit substances, get access to treatment when they need it and that we have evidence based policies that put Australia in the direction of a more compassionate, decent, sensible community working to look after its citizens and recognising when the laws that we have simply don't work.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just when I thought I couldn't be surprised by a contribution in this place: well, I honestly thought I was on Candid Camera there for a minute, waiting for someone to pop up from the Clerk's desk with some sort of a party whistle! That contribution to this debate on the Criminal Code and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Commonwealth Restrictions on Cannabis) Bill 2018, coming from a medical practitioner, was nothing short of extraordinary.

I'll just take for a moment the things the good doctor didn't say—these impacts that he talks about, which in his case he believes are fair and reasonable for a society to accept. It's well-known in this chamber that I'm a retired police detective. I suspect I have had more to do with cannabis users, people who've used drugs and the abuse of drugs than anyone else in this place. I can assure the leader of the Greens that to dismiss the impacts of the abuse of cannabis and its cannabinoid tetrahydrocannabinol, being the agent within the 96 cannabinoids within marijuana or cannabis sativa, is irresponsible. There is an enormous body of evidence all over the world about the impacts of long-term use of cannabis, particularly on young people. Conditions such as anxiety, paranoia, cognitive impairment and psychotic symptoms are very commonly associated with cannabis users, particularly long-term cannabis users.

I think there's a fair argument that a high percentage of young people, particularly in the seventies and eighties and maybe a bit before then, dabbled in drugs of all sorts, cannabis probably being the most common, because at that time it featured predominantly in the marketplace. For many, it was a passage in their life. They might fiddle lightly or moderately with cannabis over a period of time, and then of course they move on in life and go on to marry and have a family, and their views and attitudes to the consumption of cannabis clearly change. But for those, and there are a lot, who become addicted to this particular drug—and make no mistake about it, it is a drug of addiction—you can pick them out of the crowd. You can pick them out of the shopping centre. You can see those who have had very long-term—decades—consumption of cannabis and the impacts it has on them.

There's clear peer reviewed, unequivocal evidence that shows that after the long-term use of cannabis adults lose up to eight IQ points, so it affects their cognitive ability to function. What if we were to take everything in our society as suggested by the good doctor that's a challenge and legalise it, so it no longer becomes a challenge—or, offensively, with his remarks, to increase the revenue of the state on the plight of people who would adopt a further legal addiction? I hear him on the effects of alcohol on some, and certainly the effects of harder drugs on some have a greater impact than that of cannabis sativa use. I'm happy to trade them off if the leader of the Greens can give us a solution where we can get ice out of the marketplace, for example. So you hand in your ice permit and we'll replace it with a marijuana permit. I might give some thought to this. Probably not for very long, but I may give some consideration to it; but that's not what's happening. We've got a litany of drugs in our community that are impacting on people and their health. To suggest that somehow by legalising it is an acceptable condition, because they're going to do it anyway, is a complete nonsense. That is a complete and absolute nonsense.

I simply couldn't believe the contribution made by Senator Di Natale, particularly as a medical physician. As is the case with most of the contributions from the Greens, you have to have a very keen ear to listen to what they don't tell you. They'll make arguments that are positive to their intent and their objectives but what they fail to do is touch on issues. We have seen it here time and time again. We hear them prattle on about climate change and the need to get rid of coal. But they do not mention one word about the 180,000 direct and indirect jobs in my home state, and the literally hundreds of communities whose local economies rely directly on coal. So no solution; just an idea.

We hear it with the illegal immigrants time and time again. I've listened for five years. I've turned my ear to that corner of the chamber to hear them once accept any responsibility for the 1,200 deaths on the high sea that occurred with immigrants coming to this country. I urge people who listen to the contribution from the leader of the Greens to listen very carefully, go over the text of the Hansard and find where there was any reasonable effort on the part of Dr Di Natale to talk about the impacts on individual lives.

As a detective I didn't just deal with people who were involved in and addicted to cannabis sativa. The spectrum with respect to cannabis sativa is enormous. Some of it has mild impacts and some of it has quite significant impacts on people's behaviour. It has been associated with violence in the home. It has been associated with all of the other peripheral crimes that go with people who have taken mind-altering drugs—for example, driving vehicles and operating machinery. We have come a long way in this country to be able to curb some of those things.

In fact, the impacts of cannabis intake last a lot longer on the individual than the intake of alcohol. I don't know when, under Dr Di Natale's plan, they're going to have their puff. They won't be able to drive a car within the next 24 hours. They won't be able to go to work and operate heavy equipment. They'll be impaired around dangerous equipment and processes in their workplace and will harm themselves and, indeed, harm others. There's a massive body of evidence that supports that proposition, because we now have drug testing. Of course, we've heard the Greens argue before that they don't want drug testing. I remember the extraordinary motion that they endeavoured to pass through this place with respect to that. His contribution should be ignored and this bill should be knocked out.

Debate interrupted.