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

I rise to support the passage of the Narcotic Drugs Amendment Bill 2016. I do so in the knowledge that I should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. As most people know, legalising cannabis is Liberal Democrats' policy. And, yes, that includes recreational use. This bill is good, but is far from perfect. It amends the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 to establish a national licensing scheme to allow the cultivation of cannabis for medical and scientific purposes. It will allow such cultivation to operate in accordance with Australia's obligations under the three UN drug control conventions. Those conventions—the bastard children of US prohibition and the war on drugs—mean that Australia is placed in the position where its new regime for the regulation of medicinal cannabis is onerous.

It involves an elaborate licensing regime: one form of licence authorises the cultivation of cannabis for manufacture into medicinal cannabis products; a second authorises research into the cannabis plant that is to be used for medicinal purposes. It also takes in a strict 'fit and proper person' test. This test will be applied to the applicant farmer or researcher as well as his relevant business associates. It involves consideration of a range of matters, including criminal history, connections, associates and family, financial status, business history and capacity to comply with licensing requirements. Licence holders will be expected to remain 'fit and proper persons', too. The regime is explicitly designed to ensure the exclusion of criminal elements, who may be tempted—we are told—to use the licence scheme as cover for illegal activities. In short, if you want to grow or research medicinal cannabis under the new legislation, you effectively let the government set up CCTV in your bedroom.

I recognise why the bill before us today is comprised almost wholly of red tape. Legalising cannabis for recreational use at the federal level would constitute a denunciation of the UN drug control conventions, and almost certainly would have a serious impact on Australia's legal opium poppy industry. Our opium poppy growers in Tasmania, who produce about half the world's legal medical opioids, depend on Australia complying with the UN drug control conventions or they risk their multimillion dollar international markets. Opium poppy growers already work under a licensing regime that mirrors the one this bill sets up for medicinal cannabis.

That said, it is becoming clear that legalising recreational cannabis at the state level in a federal system invites a lot of bleating and chest-beating from UN bodies like the International Narcotics Control Board, but not much else. After Colorado legalised recreational cannabis, the INCB thundered that the drug control treaties must be implemented by state parties, including states with federal structures. Last time I looked, cannabis was still legal in Colorado, Oregon, Alaska, Washington, and Washington DC, and the sky had not fallen, and yet the INCB's quick summary is: drugs are bad.

Australia's fight for legalising recreational cannabis use, would seem, must largely be prosecuted at the state level. This serves as a reminder that a great deal of international law is nonsense and does not deserve our automatic respect. Legalising recreational cannabis use would deprive organised crime, whether Middle Eastern crime gangs, Asian triads, bikie gangs, or relatives of Darth Vader, of a major source of income, and relieve police of the cost 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 is an expense we do not need.

Then there is the opportunity for increased tax revenue, which is something of interest to the big spenders on both sides of this chamber. If its consumption is legal, it can be taxed. I recently asked the Parliamentary Budget Office how much money the government could raise if it legalised and then applied the GST to cannabis. The answer was $300 million dollars, and that is just in GST revenue. I did not ask them about other forms of revenue-raising, because I find high taxes obnoxious.

Finally, it is not legitimate use of government power to prohibit adults from doing something that does not harm others. It is irrelevant that it may not be wise to use a plant for recreational purposes. I neither endorse nor recommend recreational use. The point is simply that governments do not have the moral authority to ban something based either on disapproval or on a desire to protect people from their own choices.

It is also a basic reality that most people have tried it at some point, that includes President Obama and me. When the law says one thing and people do another a free society changes the law. Medial cannabis is only half the answer. This bill is a step in the right direction, but only a step. It is high time we stopped using international law to justify interfering in adult choices. Government opinions are only relevant to those who are incapable of deciding things for themselves.