 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
DRUGS
The Hon. CAROLYN PICKLES (Leader of the Opposition): I move:
That the regulations under the Controlled Substances Act 1984 concerning expiation of offences, made on 3 June 1999 and laid on the table of this Council on 6 July 1999, be disallowed.The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I support the motion to disallow the regulation. This regulation is, at best, knee-jerk reaction—
An honourable member interjecting: The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Let me finish first, and then you can decide whether you agree with me or not. I believe very strongly that it is knee-jerk reaction. The stated reason for it is that organised crime has found that this is a way of producing cannabis and that, by changing this regulation, we will close off, if you like, this loophole. Let us go back a step further and ask: what, indeed, is it that we hope to achieve overall? Are we trying to stop people from using cannabis and, if so, will this change the situation? It will not. Long before hydroponics, and this particular loophole perhaps was being exploited, cannabis was readily available. While it might be true that some cannabis is flowing from South Australia to the other States, the majority of the cannabis would be locally grown, or even imported. If this loophole is closed off, the cannabis supply will not change one iota. Members have to realise that the people who supply the cannabis are, indeed, criminals. They are involved in a `for profit' activity—supply and demand. The demand will not go away and neither will the supply. It might be true that there will be some minor variations in how the plants are produced and where they come from but the quantity being produced simply will not change, because it really is responding to the marketplace.Let us look at some of the other ramifications. It might be true that organised crime is using this regulation as a loophole, but I do not think it is producing the majority of the cannabis that way, by any stretch of the imagination. We are still finding plenty of busts of big and medium sized crops in warehouses and all sorts of places. I am not saying it is insignificant, but we would be kidding ourselves if we tried to suggest that it is the major source of supply.
The majority of people who are growing between three and 10 plants are probably at most what you might call `disorganised crime'. They are not the Mr Bigs or the syndicates: they are individuals, perhaps sometimes a couple of friends, who are growing small crops. Yes, they are selling those crops illegally, but it is almost certain that these operators are selling cannabis and nothing else. In the South Australian market at the moment we have probably a significant number of suppliers who grow cannabis only, grow relatively small numbers of plants and offer cannabis and nothing else for sale.
Clearly the risks for people growing those small crops will be greatly increased, and the level of `disorganised crime' will diminish, but organised crime will grow. It will continue to meet the market demand, so the big end of the drug business will increase market share, and it is the big end also that sells drugs besides cannabis. It is the big end that also sells amphetamines, LSD and whatever else, so when our young people are offered cannabis they will also be offered other drugs. There are a couple of ramifications. The first ramification is that it will not alter the supply level one iota. Some people might feel good that they have shut down a particular operation, but it will not shut down the Mr Bigs; they will just change the way they source their stuff. In fact, the Mr Bigs will benefit, because the risks will become greater for the smaller, disorganised end, and those people who have been growing three to 10 plants will disappear. So, it is organised crime that will be the big winners of this change, and it is organised crime that is also more likely to be offering other drugs as well.There is no pharmacological truth that cannabis in itself is a stepping stone to other drugs, but it is true that, as long as the markets for cannabis and other drugs are mixed, the suppliers are the same. That is the way in which it is more likely to act as a stepping stone. That is certainly the belief of the Dutch, who set about separating the markets totally by allowing cannabis coffee shops. They set about trying to separate the cannabis market from the rest.
I might not have had any problems with this regulation if it had been part of a suite of changes. I myself have advocated the need to consider licensed suppliers of cannabis. That would imply licensed growers, but I would not envisage large numbers of growers growing up to 10 plants. I think that going back to fewer than three plants, where people are genuinely growing just what they want themselves, will work fine in the circumstances where any adult who is seeking to purchase cannabis is able to buy it elsewhere legally. Of course, with the model I am advocating I am seeking to separate the cannabis market from the other drugs.
I would not have had any problems with this regulation at all if it had been part of a suite of changes where the Government set about regulating the market in a realistically achievable fashion. This will achieve no good result at all. I defy anyone anybody to tell me what benefits will derive from this regulation.
However, I can point at two clear negatives due to this regulation: the benefit that actually goes to organised crime (not a `disbenefit' but a benefit); and the risk that the markets for cannabis and other drugs will become more intermingled. Of course, the stepping stone theory, which then has no pharmacological basis, will exist because of that mixing of the markets. I do not believe that it has been very well thought through. I know the reasons it has been done. I know that the police have been lobbying for it because of their frustration in busting these sorts of crops and they can see people thumbing their nose at the intent of the law. But one must look at the outcome, and the outcome will be clearly negative. For that reason it is a bad regulation and we should be looking only at these changes as part of a comprehensive suite of changes and not a change in isolation.
