David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share 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.