Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share 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.