David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a historic day. It is the first time that the federal parliament has had before it the opportunity to vote on a plan to legalise cannabis across the country. We're taking a big step today away from treating cannabis as part of the failing war on drugs and instead putting forward a model where cannabis use will be safer, where we reduce harms and we answer the growing community demand to just get on and legalise it.

I want to thank everybody who's been part of getting this bill, the Legalising Cannabis Bill 2023, here today—the some 9,000 people who put in submissions to our draft bill, the thousands of others who have engaged with us and those who are watching today, either in the chamber or online, who are looking to this parliament and Senate to finally vote to legalise cannabis after decades and decades of a failed war of criminalising it. They want this to happen, and I want to thank everybody who has been a part of making this happen today. I want to also thank people for the trust they've placed in me, my office and the Greens to bring forward this legislation that has such wide backing in the community.

We consulted broadly, and, of the 9,000 people who engaged with our draft legislation, 99 per cent said: 'Get on and do this. Legalise it.' Do you know what else we did? We actually listened to the responses that came from the 9,000 people who engaged, and we made our legislation better. We fixed up a bunch of things to ensure that every adult household could grow up to six plants without a licence, because we heard that's what people wanted. We heard people wanted safe labelling. We heard they wanted an independent regulator. We improved our bill with the help of all of you, so thank you again.

It's likely this work won't end today, but let's take a moment to reflect on how huge this moment is and how many people have come together to help craft this bill—constitutional lawyers, long-term cannabis campaigners, law reform campaigners and people across the country who see the opportunity that comes with legalising cannabis, which is to radically reduce harm in the criminal justice system and create a multibillion-dollar legitimate and thriving industry. They are watching today to see what the politicians they've sent here are going to do with this bill. They're watching the Labor Party and they're watching the coalition, and they're wondering whether they're stuck in the 1950s or whether they understand it's 2024.

I can give you this promise: we will keep fighting. The Greens will keep fighting for this reform because we know a couple of pretty fundamental things. We know that cannabis use in Australia is extremely common—it's happening—and the denials we're going to get from the major parties about that fundamental fact will have millions of Australians shaking their heads. We know that the community supports cannabis legalisation and is asking this parliament to get on with it. We know that leaving cannabis illegal causes multiple harms—harms to our criminal justice system, corruption of our police and the criminalisation of about 60,000 people a year, primarily because they're found with a joint in their pocket. We also know that making cannabis legal can remove multiple harms. For the first time people will be able to buy product, knowing that it has met safety standards. They'll know the strength. They'll know it's not contaminated. They'll know it's organic, if it says 'organic' on the label, and they'll see from the labelling where to get help if they need it.

I'm excited about the model for legalisation that we have on the table today. It's a model for home grown, for those who want to. It's a model for community co-ops, growing a plant for safe consumption and sale. If passed, it would be the first time to put quality control, strength and labelling requirements on cannabis products so that people know what they're buying. I'll tell you one of the things that came so clearly in the consultation we had: people want to know—and they have the right to know—what they're putting in their bodies. That labelling and product quality are essential.

Today we could create a new sustainable industry, with thousands of jobs across the country. These are green jobs. Legalising cannabis will also have the double effect of taking billions of dollars away from organised crime, disempowering drug dealers, and it will allow us to put billions of dollars into public revenue for essential services, not least health and drug programs for those who need it. Let's be clear: any senator who votes against this bill is voting to keep billions of dollars going to organised crime. Organised crime is looking to the coalition and Labor to save its business model today, and we want to break it. All of this can be achieved if we just agree to allow adults the right to choose—if they want a beer, a gummy or a cannabis drink on a Friday night after a full-on week at work, or maybe a Thursday night after a full-on week in the Senate.

We recognise that there has been important cannabis law reform in the ACT. I remember hearing the cries of fear from the coalition, when the ACT did significant cannabis reform, two years ago, that somehow or other the ACT would become a crime mecca. I remember them saying there'd be party boats full of drug taking on the lake. What a bizarre failure that particular attack has been, because none of that has happened. The sky is still above us here in the ACT. Indeed, we have seen people, particularly young people and First Nations people, no longer being dragged into the criminal justice system. That's what changed in the ACT, and that's good. I recognise the efforts of Greens MPs and cannabis campaigners around the country that made that happen. I know that, without a national push, without us doing this here as often as it takes to make it happen, we are going to be waiting decades for piecemeal cannabis reform in the states and territories. We need a plan to make cannabis legal.

I have to say this: we're likely to see Labor and the coalition step up and oppose legalising cannabis. They oppose it despite the fact that millions of Australians want it. Millions more around the world already have access to legalised cannabis. Again, we see the Labor Party and the coalition coming forward saying, 'No, no, no, no, no.' They're like the worst South Park episode you've ever seen. They keep pretending cannabis isn't widely available and used. They keep suggesting that those who consume cannabis are criminals and should not be listened to. Almost half of Australian adults have tried cannabis at one point or another, and we're going to see the coalition and Labor come up and say, 'They should be in jail' and 'They should be criminals.' We say that law isn't us; that's what we say.

Labor and the coalition keep pretending the war on drugs is working and that we live in a world where drug use only happens rarely, like the occasions where one of their South Australian MPs is caught live on video or the endless numbers of coalition and Labor MPs who say, when they're caught, that they only ever tried it once. What a nonsense that is.

Government data shows 8.8 million adult Australians have consumed cannabis at one point or another in their time. Are Labor and the coalition going to say they should go to jail? Is that really what they're going to say? They're happy to call 8.8 million Australians criminals? It's a disgrace. That's why people are so sick of politics as usual, controlled by corporate interests and politicians with the imagination of a brick. My office keeps hearing from people using cannabis to deal with anxiety or pain or just to relax, and many of them can't get it through the incredibly expensive medicinal cannabis regime. We think they should have a right, as adults, to choose what they put in their bodies in a well-regulated legal scheme. If choosing cannabis instead of products from pharmaceutical companies is working for you, as it does for many Australians, the Greens say you should have that choice. If you'd rather have a brownie instead of a beer, of course you should be allowed to do that if you're an adult in this country. One day, we'll be able to sit together in a cannabis cafe, chill out together and think about the decades it took us to get there—maybe with some organically grown local product.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tasmanian!

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My colleague says 'Tasmanian'. I look forward to the best Lismore blue and maybe some truffles—and we will get this to happen.

Reflecting on why we need this, it's because the war on drugs is over in much of the rest of the world. When it comes to cannabis, the war on drugs is over. It has comprehensively failed. Every year, governments pour billions of dollars into drug law enforcement, making supposedly 'big busts' and prosecuting people for having a joint in their pocket. We know, when we talk to the police and talk to the security agencies, that none of it has an impact on the supply or price of drugs—none of it. Maybe it has a one-week impact on price, but the illegal crime model is designed to have endless busts, endless policing and still have almost unlimited product available. The police know this; they tell us this. The only ones that benefit from the current policy settings on making cannabis illegal are organised crime figures, who so desperately want Labor and the coalition to vote this down so that they can keep their crooked-market model, sell illegal, unregulated drugs and make super profits—and, with that, have money to corrupt police and to drive other illegal organisations. We want to end that business model today. Of course organised crime are going to be cheering the coalition on when they vote this down; of course they will.

A core benefit of legalising cannabis is stopping the damage to people's lives by dragging them through the criminal justice system just because they'd rather have a joint or a gummy than a beer or tobacco. We know that the current law targets the most vulnerable people in our communities. Who gets shaken down in my home city of Sydney, as they are walking about the streets, on possession of cannabis suspicion by the police? It's young First Nations people. It's young men in Western Sydney who the police target because of the colour of their skin and because they are vulnerable and often because they are poor. That's who gets whacked in the current system. If you're wealthy middle-class or upper middle-class, Daddy's got the lawyer, you've got the social power—you're not going to be targeted. The Liberal party know this. The Labor Party know this.

Currently it's individual consumers of cannabis who are most likely to be targeted by this war on drugs, and, of the 66,285 cannabis arrests nationally in 2020-21, more than 90 per cent were consumers, not providers—consumers going to jail because they had a joint in their pocket. That's who's going to court and getting a criminal record, with, often, their life trajectory turned on its head because this lot, Labor and the coalition, don't realise it's 2024.

The global data shows that the likelihood of any significant increase of cannabis use following legalisation is extremely low. What legalisation gives is a far more relaxed, well-regulated opportunity, where instead of buying the strongest weed from 'Crusher' down in some dark apartment, where you don't know what it will be, it's possible to drop into a dispensary and get a bud tender to recommend something that will match your mood, with strength and dosage information available, to safely consume at home. I can tell you what the Greens would prefer. But we're going to see the coalition and Labor vote for Crusher—vote for the dark apartment, the lack of regulation and the unadulterated strength. It's to their shame that they do this.

We see so many positives with legalising cannabis. We don't pretend the drug is without harm; we just know that legalising it will radically reduce the harm. We can see from North America, from Europe and from countries in our region that there are different ways of legalising cannabis, and our model understands the best evidence. We don't want rampant advertising. We want to get rid of big pharma, big tobacco and big alcohol and have them play no part in this industry.

We want adult Australians to have the right to choose. We're the party who thinks adults have the right to choose what goes in their body, they have the right to know what they're consuming and they should expect a parliament to treat them like adults. I promise you today that the Greens will keep working until this is law, and we just get on and legalise it.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does not support this bill, the Legalising Cannabis Bill 2023. Laws dealing with the recreational possession and use of cannabis are matters for the states and territories. Senator Shoebridge's bill cannot change that basic fact. This bill is a stunt by Senator Shoebridge and the Greens, and it has a flimsy legal basis. The Senate committee inquiry into this bill could not determine with any confidence that the bill was constitutional. When asked to provide to the committee the legal advice on which the bill was based, the committee was told it may have been lost.

Apart from the glaring constitutional issues, there are a number of serious concerns about how it would operate. For example, the bill imposes minimal penalties for trafficking in cannabis contrary to the bill, including by selling the drug to children. And it makes to attempt to remove organised crime from the cannabis supply chain, imposing no character conditions on the persons to whom licences to trading cannabis can be granted.

As Senator Shoebridge knows, state and territory parliaments have considered and adopted various measures to balance criminal law and health care and harm minimisation responses to cannabis. Of course, that is a matter for them. It's unclear how the bill would interact with the complicated regimes that the Commonwealth law establishes for the regulation of pharmaceuticals, including medicinal cannabis products, and for controlling the import and export of both legal and illegal drugs. It's important to note that the government does recognise and support the need of patients and their doctors to access a safe, legal and reliable supply of medicinal cannabis products for the management of painful and chronic conditions. We continue to support the Australian medicinal cannabis licensing schemes to ensure that patients have appropriate access to safe medicinal cannabis when they need it most.

All Australian governments support a harm minimisation approach to illicit drugs, with an emphasis on harm reduction, supply reduction and demand reduction, as agreed through the National Drug Strategy 2017-2026. Harm reduction is a key pillar of the National Drug Strategy 2017-2026, and diversion away from the criminal justice system is a key method for reducing drug harm use. In attempting a ham-fisted Commonwealth takeover of state and territory drug laws and regulations, this bill would undercut all of that careful work. Also, through a circuitous and legally uncertain use of Commonwealth constitutional power over intellectual property, which includes intellectual property in varieties of plants, it would establish the Cannabis Australia National Agency, responsible for registering and licensing the use of particular strains of cannabis. Once a strain of cannabis was under the control of the CANA, the bill would attempt to override state and territory laws that would otherwise apply to the sale, possession and use of the cannabis strain.

This bill is ill-conceived, possibly dangerous and probably unconstitutional, but that's pretty typical of the Greens. The government will not support the bill, and I urge all senators across the chamber to do the same.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm actually very pleased that the Australian Greens have brought this private senator's bill, the Legalising Cannabis Bill 2023, to the chamber, because the Australian parliament has just two days left to sit before we rise for the year and potentially go to a federal election. What this bill shows is the real danger that Australians will face if their worst nightmare comes true and they end up with a Labor-Greens minority government. It is a fact, as we stand here 2½ years into the Albanese government, that Australians are much worse off than they were when the Albanese government was elected, yet here we are, two days before this place rises, talking about the issue of legalising cannabis.

To be very clear, the coalition will not be supporting this bill. It is almost embarrassing, when you look at the drafting of this bill, that the Australian Greens thought it was a bill that should even be considered by this chamber. If you were serious, you would have had it properly drafted, which they haven't. It is a bill that fails every policy test.

Let's look, in the first instance, at the health implications. The Australian Greens are fond of saying—we heard it from Senator Shoebridge—that their approach is based on harm minimisation, and they have cited claims that this approach is health led. So, in terms of the health related impacts of this bill, let's have a look at what the experts have actually said. The Australian Medical Association does not support the bill. Why does the pre-eminent medical association in Australia, which deals with health issues every single day—day in, day out—say it may increase health and social related harms? In fact, this is what it says:

This in turn may increase demand on an already overstretched healthcare system.

That was totally disregarded but the Australian Greens.

Then we have a look at another pre-eminent body, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. They too do not support the legalisation of cannabis. They say:

There is strong evidence that recreational cannabis is harmful, particularly to susceptible groups such as people with mental health disorders, young people and the unborn child.

Again, that was totally disregarded by the Australian Greens.

Then we have a look at the evidence from the chief medical people in the Health Products Regulation group at the Department of Health and Aged Care. Professor Langham said:

In terms of my own understanding of the adverse effects of cannabis on the human body, there are known issues with cardiovascular problems of the heart and pulmonary effects of the lungs; and also issues regarding acute use, chronic use and neuropsychiatric or mental disorders as well. There have been increasing reports of overdose and toxicity by minors with increasing use. Also, I suppose, there's the other perhaps less easy to measure aspect of use, which is the risks on driving and impaired driving.

But, again, it was totally disregarded by the Australian Greens.

The Drug Advisory Council of Australia—I would have thought they'd know what they were talking about—don't support it, and they said:

An overwhelming amount of evidence tells us that cannabis use causes significant harm to people's physical, cognitive and mental health.

…   …   …

Cannabis use harms children, young people and families.

Again, this is an evidence based position founded on careful, systematic reviews of the effects of legalisation. They actually have looked at this before. The Drug Advisory Council of Australia is very clear in relation to this policy, saying, 'The harms outweigh the benefits.' For an alleged harm minimisation policy, that position from the Drug Advisory Council of Australia is, quite frankly, an absolute indictment.

So the evidence from the Australian Medical Association, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the chief medical officer in the Health Products Regulation group at the Department of Health and Aged Care and the Drug Advisory Council of Australia regarding the health impacts of this bill is overwhelming. Quite frankly, it would be folly for this Senate to ignore it.

Let's now also look at the crimes and customs implications. Again, they are just dismissed by the Australian Greens. The bad news for the Australian Greens is that there are some of us in this place who actually take our roles as policymakers seriously. We look at the health benefits before we decide whether we should or should not support a bill. We also look at the very serious crime and customs implications. The first point is in relation to the way this bill is drafted. It would actually override customs law. That's great news for Australians, isn't it! Customs law is put in place to protect Australians and Australia, but this bill overrides it. The bill is drafted in such a way that Australian Border Force officials may be unable to do their job of regulating imports and exports. If you want to talk about organised crime and sending a message to them, Senator Shoebridge, wow! The way your bill is drafted, it well and truly does that.

The Department of Home Affairs has specifically warned that it overrides parts of the Export Control Act and the Criminal Code, but, again, the Australian Greens don't seem to care about that. The Police Federation of Australia raised very clear concerns about basic road safety—good grief!—saying there is no nationally recognised and accepted regime for testing the impairment of a driver who tests positive to cannabis in their system, in the same manner as alcohol impairment is tested. But, hey, who cares? The Australian Greens clearly don't. They also cited submissions from the Australian Federal Police Association about the impacts of decriminalisation in the ACT—remember, the government here went down this path in 2020—noting:

Subsequent analysis by ACT Policing of roadside drug test results, road accidents (including fatalities) and related intelligence holdings have demonstrated a marked increase in the use of cannabis in the ACT since decriminalisation.

It needs to be emphasised that this marked increase was detected through roadside drug tests. The Northern Territory Police have a view on this too:

The decriminalisation of cannabis would … result in disproportionately worse outcomes for Aboriginal communities when compared to non-Aboriginal communities.

Seriously; you have to be kidding me! The Greens didn't properly analyse the impact of this bill on those who are most vulnerable.

Just to be very clear: police are clearly warning about an increase in drug driving and an inability to police that drug driving. That's bad enough, but on top of that this may lead to serious injuries or fatalities and disproportionate adverse effect impacts on Indigenous communities in Australia. But, again, the Australian Greens—and this is a clear warning to all Australians. All commentators are now saying Australia is heading to a minority government. The misinformation bill may be dead at the moment but that's only because the Greens didn't think it went far enough; beware, Australia. More than that, can you imagine the deal the Australian Greens would do with Labor to legalise drugs in Australia.

If you don't want to believe the health impacts, if you don't want to believe the serious crime and customs implications—we spend taxpayers' money in this place, so let's have a look at the economic implications. In relation to this particular piece of poorly drafted legislation, the Australian Greens cited PBO costings claiming this policy would generate $28.2 billion in excise revenue over 10 years or potentially more if the excise is set higher. Is it actually going to go past that, though? What is not cited is the part where the PBO repeatedly describes this costing as, in the first instance, 'highly uncertain'. That is not a great start for a piece of legislation that is currently up for debate in the Senate. They also say the actual outcomes may differ significantly.

What's more, the costings themselves are based on a set of assumptions which in their own right are highly uncertain. One of the PBO key assumptions is that 12 per cent of the adult population would consume about six grams of cannabis per week. Economist Professor Jenny Williams puts it this way: 'Basically, they're using every single day.' Professor Williams says this: 'In fact, the current statistics indicate that just 1.68 per cent of Australians over 14 years of age are currently using cannabis every day.' There is a big difference, I would have thought, in the Australian Greens' costings and the fact that between 1.68 per cent of the population and 12 per cent of the adult population in Australia will be using just under one gram of cannabis a day. It is a blowout of more than 700 per cent of people who will be using cannabis every single day.

Even journalists at the ABC reporting on this bill said:

This could mean the Greens' economic benefits are either wildly overstated or—

I can live with 'wildly overstated', but I cannot live with this—

predicated on a massive surge in uptake.

Shame on the Australian Greens! I'd like them to explain how they came up with that $28.2 billion figure. Are your economic benefits wildly overstated, or, alternatively—God help Australia—based on the massive upsurge in intake?

Let's look at the legal implications. The Greens have added a clause that deliberately overrides every other Commonwealth law, past or future. Talk about an ambit claim; you've got to be kidding me! If they're serious, then God help Australia in the event of a minority government. There is an obvious source of concern when they don't know what laws they're overriding. What Commonwealth laws are being overridden? That's not explained. And why are they being overridden?

There are some other oddities in the bill. The first example is that the bill makes clear that a person needs to pay a fee for a licence to sell cannabis or to register a cannabis strain unless they are an Indigenous person or a body corporate controlled by one or more Indigenous persons. I don't even know where to go with that clause, quite frankly, in particular if we go back to the impact on Indigenous people.

Another example is they have included a clause that says that as long as a state or territory law is 'capable of operating concurrently' then it will not be overridden, but then there is another clause that directly overrides state and territory laws. Despite any other law of the Commonwealth, a state or a territory under this bill, a person cannot be charged with an offence related to possession of minors. I hope the Greens haven't looked at this, because if they have and they actually know this is what their bill does—shame on you! I'm glad we are debating this in the last 48 hours, potentially, that this place could be sitting, because it is a clear warning to the Australian people: if you think it's bad now, my God, it can get a hell of a lot worse with an Australian Greens and Anthony Albanese Labor government.

There are some other obvious questions. Which state and territory laws are capable of operating concurrently? Nobody seems to know. How does the bill deal with offences around distribution of drugs? Will the bill override other laws intended for the protection of children? How does it interact with laws around the distribution of vapes? Is the bill even Constitutional? That is actually a threshold issue. The committee report on the bill sets out an extraordinary direction on the Greens' legal advice, and it's worth reading from the report. The committee was led to understand that the Greens have obtained Constitutional advice on their bill, and it says:

The Australian Greens' legal advice was provided by Professor Keyzer. Professor Keyzer gave oral evidence to the committee that the Commonwealth has power to enact the Bill …

The problem is this: the committee expresses concerns that the bill is not Constitutional and Professor Keyzer was not able to produce written advice. He suggested he may have lost it. Is that some type of weird joke? Seriously! Constitutional advice and you think you've lost it? Just go to your computer or download it. Or don't you have it? He also said he was not aware of any other academic or Constitutional lawyer that had taken the same view. You have got to be kidding me! The bill is flawed. It is ideology masquerading as economic policy. It is sloppy, it is harmful and it should not be passed by the Senate. But I'm so glad we're debating it, because if you think it's bad now, under Albanese and the Greens it's going to get a hell of a lot worse.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's much in the Legalising Cannabis Bill 2023 which would make the regulatory environment for cannabis in Australia much, much fairer, so I thank Senator Shoebridge for bringing this bill before the Senate. I feel very pleased to speak, excited about some things and disappointed about others. For too long, the government of the day, both Liberal and Labor, have acted to defend the pharmaceutical state from the competition that medical cannabis represents. Indeed, our regulatory body, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, is funded from the pharmaceutical industry that it purports to regulate. The result is regulatory capture.

In recent years the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA, has taken decisions that defy logic and that breach integrity—decisions that have placed 90 per cent of Australian adults at great risk of harm and death, decisions that have led to excess deaths it refuses to address, because the cause is the TGA and our health authorities. The TGA is a failed experiment; that is abundantly clear. It's time to shut down the TGA and its apparatus of expert committees and agencies which act in concert to support the pharmaceutical industry to the detriment of the Australian people. It's time to return control of drug and medical device approvals to the department, where the parliament will be able to exercise oversight and ensure accountability and transparency, which are sadly missing with the TGA.

The department can be downsized. Health is the state responsibility. Centralised regulation of drugs in the hands of the Commonwealth makes sense, and the states should be charged the cost of doing it or do it themselves, as they used to. Cannabis was removed from medical options in Australia following the Menzies government's passage of the National Health Act 1953. This legislation placed the British Pharmacopoeia as the primary source of standards for drugs in Australia. Cannabis was a stalwart of pharmacopoeia. In 2024 the only pharmacopoeia that still includes medicinal cannabis is the European version. My point is that cannabis was widely used and accepted as a legitimate medical option across a wide range of profiles for a wide range of conditions. Without a doubt, pharmaceuticals have been a boon for modern society in many ways, although for many people modern pharmaceuticals don't work, or the side effects can exceed the benefit. There's a simple reason for this: medical cannabis has thousands of versions, with different combinations of cannabinoids, terpenes, flavonoids, steroids and other elements of the plant. There are thousands of elements. The Australian cannabis cultivar repository has almost 1,000 live cultivars of cannabis and is adding more all the time.

The significance of this is that it allows a patient, under the right guidance, to match their strain of cannabis—known as the profile—to the condition that they have. Modern pharmaceuticals employ and promote the opposite approach, matching a pharmaceutical product to a condition—one size fits all, if you like. That's not the way health should be. But both approaches should be available to the Australian people.

I know the government and the opposition will point to the number of prescriptions written under the pathway scheme for medical cannabis and use that to mislead the public about the success of the current system. Before they make that ill-informed statement, I ask for an answer to the question the TGA refuses to answer: how many people who received a prescription for medical cannabis actually filled it? I'll ask that again: how many people who received a prescription for medical cannabis actually filled it? My office is hearing from patients who could not afford the prescription, who could not find a chemist to fill it—often because supply was not available—and who paid out big money to get supply that was stale or even mouldy. I want to know how many people who used a medical cannabis product then suffered a side effect. I received a response to a question on notice around this last year. The answer, though, did not differentiate between legal and illegal supply.

So many people have trouble with price or availability and they fill their prescription on the black market. Some of the black-market players run rings around the quality of the legal supply, and many others do not. On the volume of prescriptions written, though not necessarily filled, the rate of harm from medical cannabis is substantially below the rate of harm for many pharmaceutical drugs. Yet cannabis has not been embraced as an alternative treatment. It used to be the leading medicine in the medical almanac in the 1930s in America; it was No. 1. So why hasn't it been embraced? Why has it been knocked out? Money talks.

Restrictions to medical cannabis are more than directly regulatory. Other subtle hurdles make it difficult to access and use affordably, and that's to the detriment of Australians' health. Cannabis will never be approved because the cost of navigating the TGA system is so high that no cannabis supplier can afford it. The Legalising Cannabis Bill 2023 contains a new regulator which could function as a unit with the department. The Cannabis Australia National Agency, CANA, would employ people who know the plant and who know how it should and should not be used. That's a blessing. CANA would set standards for use, sale, promotion, production and importation without the need for a sponsor. CANA could work with the department to understand the supply needs of the pathway scheme to issue formal guidance on profile and volume until such time as the industry develop the critical mass to do that themselves. This solves the pathways scheme's biggest hurdle: the supply is patchy and the quality is often rubbish. CANA would license strains of cannabis and issue guidance for use through a new agency. I suggest the Greens could have used the existing Australian cannabis register, although that's a small point. Regulation is necessary. Some of these insane new varieties of cannabis coming out of the United States have THC levels above 30 per cent. The cannabis that came to Australia during the Vietnam War was only three per cent THC. Over 30 per cent THC is insane, though perhaps useful for palliative care at best.

At this point, One Nation and the Greens diverge. The bill allows home cultivation of six plants. One Nation cannot support home grow. There is a qualification here: our opposition to home grow can exist only if Australians have access to safe, cheap, tested, licensed and accessible product, with a prescription from a doctor or nurse practitioner filled through a chemist or other suitable agent and supplied on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the PBS. One Nation introduced a bill which would have done just that, and it was roasted, including by the Greens, can I say. In an interesting example of karma, their bill met the same fate.

The German government tried for two years, through 2022 and 2023, to introduce legislation which was similar to mine—sensible down-regulation of cannabis. They spent two years fighting entrenched interests, their own department and the Bundestag, the German parliament, and then lost patience. In a decision which could be characterised as 'Stuff the lot of you', the government simply legalised cannabis. That came into effect on 1 April this year. I'm pleased to inform the Senate that, in a country which is directly comparable to our country, Australia, legalised cannabis hasn't caused the world to end. In fact, nothing harmful has happened. This was the same result in the Australian Capital Territory, which allowed home grow three years ago with the same result. No harm happened. In fact, nothing happened. And that is a problem. Legalising cannabis is supposed to help people treat medical conditions, reduce drug and alcohol addiction, reduce the presence of organised crime and chill. None of that appears to have occurred. Homegrown appeals to the small number of Australians within the cannabis community who know what they are doing and who have the land to home grow. For most Australians, regulated supply works better. At this point in the development of cannabis in Australia, regulated supply will help more Australians than home grow will. I'll say that again. At this point in the development of cannabis, which is continuing, in Australia, regulated supply will help more Australians than will home grow.

The cannabis community makes a mistake that I find quite frustrating. They judge the plant on the basis of their experience and knowledge. They advocate for open grow and use like it were nothing more than a herb. It's not just a herb. As I said earlier, there are 1,000 different profiles, and that number is increasing. How does an average Australian, a typical Australian, with no or limited knowledge know which one is right, how to grow it properly, how to prepare it properly and how to store and use it correctly? A typical Australian doesn't know that, and that suggests smoking the plant, which One Nation suggests is the worst way to take medicinal cannabis. The most scientific, the most accurate and the safest is to purchase a cannabis vaping solution and vape it. But I won't go there further today.

The other aspect of the bill One Nation cannot accept is the fines and jail sentences for minor breaches of the regulations. Seriously, six months in jail and 200 penalties earned, which is $36,000? On the other hand, children under 18 get off without a penalty at all. I get that the Greens are trying to raise the age of criminal responsibility, but a 17-year-old who starts a business growing and selling cannabis gets no penalty at all. One Nation questions that. This has not been thought through properly.

Let me finish with a warning and an invitation. Increasingly, One Nation is tending to the German response. If you won't allow sensible regulation, then no regulation it is. We need sensible regulation. One Nation is prepared to engage with the government and others across the Senate to achieve a sensible regulation of cannabis, including on the PBS. We continue to listen to the community, to the people, Queensland and Australia, because we want to achieve a sensible regulation of cannabis including on the PBS.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset, I would like to congratulate members of the committee who looked into this piece of legislation, the Legalising Cannabis Bill 2023, for their thoughtful contributions and analysis of this issue, which is clearly something of great interest to many Australians. I think we just heard one of those thoughtful contributions from Senator Roberts, who engaged with particular diligence in relation to the committee inquiry. I think Senator Shoebridge's sincerity in terms of bringing this legislation forward was clearly evident—in particular, his concern about young Australians who end up with criminal records and go through the criminal justice system as a result of the use of cannabis. From my perspective, I thought this was quite a useful debate and inquiry, and I learnt many things from engaging in the process.

At the outset I'd like to say very clearly that I support the regulated medicinal use of cannabis. There was much evidence received by the inquiry that, at this point in time, people who believe they have indicated medical uses for cannabis are having trouble getting prescriptions filled. There are the logistical issues Senator Roberts mentioned, and also the cost. That is something which the government should look at. In terms of certain medical applications, there is a very legitimate demand for cannabis. I think the government and, indeed, the opposition should consider some of the barriers which were mentioned and raised in evidence during the course of the inquiry, in terms of people who go and see a qualified medical professional and obtain a regulated product. That's absolutely something we should look at.

However, to everyone listening to this debate: if you know someone, a young person, entering their formative years—based on the evidence we received from medical professionals, it is not a good idea to use cannabis or marijuana for recreational use. I know some people will disagree with me; I recognise that. However, the medical evidence is clear that there will be a small proportion of people who suffer catastrophic side effects from the use of cannabis and marijuana, and it will be hugely damaging to their lives. For those young people who have not gone down the path of using cannabis or marijuana, and where it is not indicated for particular medical purposes, it is simply not a good idea to go down this path. The medical evidence received from experts who've studied the issue across numerous jurisdictions over many years is quite clear: it is not a good idea.

It does concern me when remarks are made, as Senator Shoebridge did in his contribution, which underplay those potentially devastating impacts, especially on young people, in terms of potential addiction and potential mental illness impacts. People need to be aware that there can be devastating health impacts from the use of cannabis. The evidence suggests that perhaps up to 10 per cent of people who go down the path of using cannabis for recreational purposes will suffer those devastating impacts, and that is of deep concern.

I want to address a few points which have been touched upon in the debate. The first is in relation to organised crime. We should be very clear that the evidence from overseas is to the effect that regulating the recreational use of cannabis and marijuana does not deal with the organised crime issue. We have the benefit in this place of looking at the lived experience in other jurisdictions, and I'll refer to two of them. The first is Canada. I want to quote from a study which I refer to in my additional comments, in paragraph 1.25, Clearing the smoke: insights into Canada's illicit cannabis market. It's the study of the Canadian market, which involved data sourced from 624 legal private recreational cannabis stores and 57 illicit online stores between May and June 2023, so this is quite contemporary data. The estimate for illicit players' share of the market ranged from 25 per cent to 52 per cent. The illicit market, which is predominantly organised crime, accounts for somewhere between—and we don't know—25 per cent and 52 per cent of the Canadian market.

If we look at California, which is a very instructive example of how organised crime—because of the cost differential between those who produce a licensed, regulated product and pay tax, as opposed to those who produce illegally without having to pay the tax and without having to meet the regulation et cetera, that differential leads again to an organised crime, illicit market. The evidence is clear. The Los Angeles Times has run a series of articles with respect to the involvement of organised crime in the Californian cannabis market. One of the interesting things from the Californian experience is that a lot of the people who were pushing for the legalisation and regulation of the recreational market eventually were pushed out of participating in that very market by organised crime. We see echoes of that in terms of the tobacco market in Australia because of the cost differential between what organised crime can produce a product for on the illicit market, as opposed to a legal, regulated product. That is where the opportunity is for organised crime.

I want to quote to you from an article in the Los Angeles Times, published on 30 January 2024. It's from this year. It says:

"The plague is the black market of marijuana and certainly cartel activity, and a number of victims are out there," Sheriff Shannon Dicus said.

A Times investigation last year uncovered the proliferation of illegal cannabis in California after the passage of Proposition 64, which legalized the recreational use of marijuana in the state. Although the 2016 legislation promised voters—

just as Senator Shoebridge indicates—

that the legal market would hobble illegal trade and its associated violence, there has been a surge in the black market.

Growers at illegal sites can avoid the expensive licensing fees and regulatory costs associated with legal farms. Violence is a looming threat at these operations, authorities said, because illicit harvests yield huge quantities of cash to operators who can't use banks or law enforcement for protection.

That is what's happening on the ground in California. The issue of organised crime, the illicit market, has not been solved by these reforms that were undertaken in California. And we have no reason to expect, especially when we see Australia's experience with the illicit tobacco market, different results in Australia. I sincerely do not believe that Senator Shoebridge's private member's bill would be a panacea in terms of dealing with organised crime.

The last issue I'd like to touch upon, and this is something I did look into, is whether or not changing the system in the direction Senator Shoebridge advocates would actually lead to an increase in usage. This was debated during the course of the inquiry. I want to refer everyone to this article—and you can undertake this analysis yourself—which was issued by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre at the University of New South Wales. I'll refer to it as the Weatherburn article. There were some interesting statistics that came out of that article. It looked at the responses of Australians when they were asked: if there was a legal recreational market, would you use cannabis if you weren't currently using it, or would you increase your usage? Australians who responded to that survey said they would actually use cannabis even though they weren't currently using it, or they would increase their usage. That's what the people in the prospective market are saying.

Following their analysis of those survey results—and, again, people can have a look at this article themselves and make up their own minds—this is what these experts estimated:

… 4.2% of the population aged 14 and over … who have never tried cannabis before would try it, if use of the drug were made legal, while 2.6% of the population aged 14 and over … would use more cannabis if its use were made legal.

That's the analysis based on Australians' own responses to surveys as to whether they would try cannabis if there were a legal recreational market or whether they would increase their use. It says that 4.2 per cent of Australians who have never tried it before would use it, and 2.6 per cent would increase their usage. On this estimate, 924,543 Australian residents aged 14 and over would try it if the sanctions for use and possession were completely removed. Again, this is what the experts say in this article:

There is a clear relationship between psychological distress, age and willingness to try or use more cannabis, with those who are young and experiencing high levels of distress most likely to try cannabis …

So vulnerable young people suffering distress are more likely to be in that cohort of over 900,000 Australians who would try it if it were legal for recreational use. Based on these estimates, over 1.2 million Australians would use more cannabis if the recreational market were legalised. This is what the experts are saying. This isn't Senator Scarr saying this. This is what the experts are saying based on the survey results of Australians themselves who have said whether or not they're more likely to use cannabis in a legal recreational market.

Finally, this is the most serious finding, and I think that, whatever your philosophical disposition in relation to this debate—and there are sincerely held views on all sides—this is the issue that really concerns me the most:

The current findings nonetheless have significant public health implications. Almost half (45%) of the population aged 16-85 will experience a mental disorder at some time in their life … While the vast majority of people may be unaffected by any change in the legislative status of cannabis use, small changes in the number of heavy users of cannabis could have significant effects on demand for treatment and drug-related harms. This is especially true—

and I emphasise this—

when, as in the present case, vulnerable adolescents and teenagers are among those most likely to use more cannabis if it is decriminalised.

When we have a situation where many young Australians cannot access the mental health services that they require and are in distress, need treatment and need assistance, I think it would be very, very unwise, on the basis of the evidence which has been presented to the committee, to support a piece of legislation which, based on the responses of the Australian people themselves through surveys, would lead to an increase in recreational use and, in particular, an increase in recreational use by young people in a state of mind of distress.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Scarr for his considered response. I have a few responses, but before I do that I also want to especially thank Senator Shoebridge for bringing the Legalising Cannabis Bill 2023 before the Senate. As senators are aware, we deal with politics and policy in this place. The politics of this is that the Australian people want to see marijuana, cannabis—whatever you want to call it—decriminalised or legalised. We've seen the rise of the Legalise Cannabis Party. They're now represented in three states: Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia. They're running high-profile Senate candidates and they nearly knocked off One Nation at the last federal election. Australians are voting for this, and we need to listen. This bill is a pathway forward. The Greens have been campaigning for this bill for decades. We need to catch up with the Australian community on this.

I want to tell a quick story. I don't have a lot of time. I was recently at my mother's birthday party when she turned 80. It wasn't something I necessarily expected at my mother's party, but I got accosted by one of her friends. She'd heard that the Greens wanted to legalise marijuana. She told me a story about her brother, who's had mental health issues. He'd been a long-term cannabis user and had schizophrenia and other issues. She was irate and blamed the Greens and others for this. We had a really good chat. I said, 'Can you tell me where your brother gets his marijuana?' Of course, she couldn't. She said, 'Well, it's illegal.' And I said, 'So he probably buys it from a dealer,' just like a lot of young people buy it from dealers and will always buy it from dealers and, Senator Scarr, those who have predispositions to mental illness and are in psychological distress will buy it from a dealer or grow it themselves. We got to chatting, and I said, 'Well, don't you think we should take a harm-minimisation approach?' At the end of the day, they're buying an unregulated product. We don't know what's in it. In California, to use Senator Scarr's example, the government regulates it, and a big majority of organised crime was taken out because they were signed up to the scheme. The growers who were growing it illegally are now the government's suppliers. So, yes, of course, there's going to be an organised crime component. There always will be.

Interestingly enough, Senator Scarr, the marijuana out there that is doing damage—and I totally accept that it can be dangerous if it's used incorrectly—is synthetic marijuana, which is designed to get around the current rules and regulations, including roadside drug tests. Synthetic marijuana is extremely dangerous. It has 300 to 400 times the THC level of other marijuana that is grown naturally. It is a scourge. This is where organised crime has come in. We need a product that's regulated and works.

From personal experience, I'm standing here in the Australian Senate today as a cannabis user. I am on cannabis right now. I have CBD in my system because I am part of the legal scheme, and it has been good for me. I explained my personal experience to this lady, and I must say that I think I won her over in the end. I said that my lived experience of this is that I have learned one really important thing from being a medicinal cannabis user, which is that it's all about dosage, just like anything else in your life. You might have a gin and tonic or a beer after work, but you don't go and drink a bottle or two of gin after work.

Our cultural attachment to marijuana in this country is that so many people have used it for recreation. I don't have a problem with that if it's done the right way, but people are taking too much of this stuff. Kids are smoking ridiculous amounts. They're doing bucket bongs, and all the kinds of things that I did when I was their age, I confess. However, we don't have an adult, mature conversation about using this stuff correctly. That's what I've learnt. I have a very small amount of this. I work with a doctor. To Senator Roberts's point, I have changed my prescription three times since I've been on the scheme to get it right, and I've worked with the right people to do that. I explained to this woman that, if we had the right information and the right approach to this, a harm-minimisation approach, then your brother would have received advice a long time ago about smoking this stuff in large quantities. By the way, there is some uncertainty around whether schizophrenia is triggered by THC and marijuana products. There are clear examples of psychosis and other examples we have talked about in the committee.

Once again, it's our cultural attitude to marijuana. It starts in places like this. The stigmatised approach we saw from Senator Cash's contribution today is the problem. If we treat, understand and accept this as I do—and I know Senator Roberts and others do—cannabis can absolutely have benefits. I believe that is my personal story. If it's done the right way, then it can be good for you. It has so much more to offer. There are thousands of compounds in cannabinoids that we don't yet fully understand, and we're researching them. This drug has been used for tens of thousands of years by human beings. It has been part of a lot of cultures.

The war on drugs started in the US years ago. It has been a big part of the problem. We need to destigmatise it. We need a legal pathway forward. We need to accept it can have benefits and we need to educate people on how to do it properly. We need to get away from synthetic cannabis. We need to take the money from legalising it and put it into harm minimisation services. And we need to get it right. The Australian people want that from us. Please, Senators, look at this bill today and vote for it.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be now read a second time.