 |
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 |
|
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I move:
That regulations under the Controlled Substances Act 1984 concerning expiation of offences, made on 24 August 2000 and laid on the Table of this Council on 4 October 2000, be disallowed.
This is one of I do not know how many regulations that have been disallowed by this chamber and then immediately brought in again by the government. It is just one more contempt of the parliament by this government. I have certainly gone on the record as advocating some significant changes of laws in relation to cannabis. In fact, under the proposed laws that I would have I would be discouraging any form of commercial growing of cannabis, large or small. The change that I have advocated is that the government actually take total control of the market, to destroy the back market, that the government licence the growing, processing and sale, and I have advocated sale through licensed outlets and, in particular, pharmacies. In conversation with pharmacies, many of those are prepared to take on that role. It would be fair to say that some are not, but I was never advocating that it should be compulsory for pharmacies to do so.
I have had a strong view that, whilst many people in the community may have a view that people should not use cannabis, the reality is that a significant number of people do, and I think that we should be adopting a harm minimisation approach, both in relation to cannabis itself and in relation to what else stems from the current laws. In that regard, one of the concerns that I expressed in debate in my private member's bills in relation to regulated availability of cannabis was that we need to separate the sale of cannabis from other drugs such as amphetamines, cocaine and heroin. By the government regulating the availability, as distinct from legalising, because legalisation implies being able to advertise, promote, sell to minors etc., it would separate the market of cannabis from other drugs. Some people argue the stepping stone theory in relation to drugs. They say that people having used cannabis will then automatically move on to other drugs. I do not believe that is true, other than the fact that the people who sell cannabis will often sell other drugs as well, so the people who are in the market for cannabis will be constantly offered other drugs.
So I state again that my view is that it is not a good thing that people use cannabis but I recognise that they do. I think we should be seeking to minimise the harm, certainly through education programs, through schools and the community. We should be educating people about drug use, and not just the illicit drugs like cannabis but also the licit drugs such as alcohol, tobacco and caffeine. As I said, that is my preferred model, and I have gone into that in much more detail on other occasions.
What we have before us right now is a rule which relates to the number of plants that a person can grow and that it be expiable. In fact, since the Controlled Substances Act first came in, the expiable amount of plants was 10. The police had certainly been lobbying for some time for a reduction in that number, and they were arguing that organised crime was using it as a loophole, that there were large numbers of mini-crops, if you like, being controlled by syndicates and that that was producing substantial amounts of cannabis and that was leading to significant interstate trade, etc. I have never disputed that that may well have been happening, but let us ask ourselves, first, what percentage of the total supply was coming along that route?
The police and the government have never put any evidence on the table to show what the percentage was. They have simply said that by cutting this back it would be a good thing. The government introduced the regulation taking the number of plants from 10 to three, but anybody who knows what is going on out in the community will know that the supply of cannabis did not change. The change in the law did nothing to the supply of cannabis. I suppose the reason is pretty obvious. It is really a supply and demand situation. In my view, whilst some organised syndicates were growing crops and trying to get under that 10 plant loophole, a substantial part of the market was being supplied in other ways. Certainly, once the regulations changed back to three plants any shortfall due to that change in regulations was filled almost immediately.
So what are the consequences? The police and the government would like to argue that one consequence is that the loophole is not being exploited. That may or may not be true, but I think there are some other very important consequences as well. I think that the majority of the people who were perhaps exploiting the 10 plant loophole were not organised crime, people who were members of syndicates; they were, in fact, what some people might call disorganised crime. They were individuals who grew-
The Hon. Diana Laidlaw: Not were but are.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Well `are'-it is a three plant rule at the moment, and it was for 12 months. What happened under the 10 plant rule is that there were a number of people who were growing for personal consumption and also growing for sale but were selling really to their own circle of acquaintances. Has the government managed to cut them out, to have their acquaintances stop using cannabis? No, they have not. They have just had to get it from somewhere else. If they were not getting it from disorganised crime, where were they then getting it from? They were getting it from organised crime. The suppliers that they previously had, the people who sold them cannabis-and perhaps people say that they wish that they did not-were supplying cannabis and nothing else. The people who are now supplying the cannabis are now also saying, `Would you like amphetamines, would you like cocaine, would you like heroin? What else would you like-LSD? We've got the works.' Organised crime has increased its market share. The people who were using cannabis and were not being exposed to these other drugs are now being exposed to them.
I think it is time that people were pragmatic and practical about the impact of the changes to the law. The impact of this change in regulation by the government is to make things worse. On that basis alone, we are foolish not to have rejected it. I was a little surprised that the government did not perhaps regulate for five or six plants rather than going back to 10, because my suspicion is that, had it been five or six plants, organised crime would have dropped right out of the situation: I think that having syndicates of people growing five or six plants would not be as attractive as growing nine or 10. But I do think that the disorganised crime of which I spoke would continue to function, so the government probably would have achieved some sort of optimum result. However, it chose not to do that, for whatever reason. I note that, indeed, there were members of this chamber who seemed to indicate that they thought 10 was too many and that three was too few. So, the government had, effectively, been offered an olive branch-or perhaps a cannabis branch-and chosen not to take it. The government is simply not living in the real world.
I think it was two mornings ago that I heard the police minister on radio talking about how he had visited the Netherlands. I am not sure how in-depth his research was, because he talked about walking past cannabis coffee shops. He did not say that he went into cannabis coffee shops, which I did when I visited the Netherlands, to talk with the owners and the clients and get a feel for what was happening under their model of regulated availability, and I severely doubt that he spoke to any of the local politicians or any of the local police, which I took the time to do when I was there. It is worth noting that all the major political parties in the Netherlands and the police have supported regulated availability. So, I do not know to whom the police minister spoke to form his view about the way that things are happening in the Netherlands. He did say that he was travelling with his CEO, so I guess he was talking with him the whole time and they worked things out between them.
I hope that the government reconsiders its position- although its record with respect to these sorts of things has not been good. As I said, this is not about whether or not you think cannabis consumption is a good or a bad thing: it is the practical consequences of this set of regulations. Whether one is for or against cannabis, one would realise that all the government has managed to do with this regulation is to make things worse.
The Hon. T. Crothers: What's happening now-it's working, isn't it?
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: It's not working. In fact, they had the three plant regulation in place for 12 months and they did not come back into this place and produce a shred of evidence to show that, indeed, it had improved the situation in any way whatsoever; none at all. In fact, in my view, they are really trying to play the sort of cards that Howard is playing, which is really playing on the fears of conservative South Australians who have honest concerns, but they are being played upon. The government, which should be in a position to at least have all the facts in front of it and to make sensible decisions, is more bothered about playing the political cards than doing what is right, particularly for the young people of South Australia. I urge all-
Members interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: They don't learn their lessons. I do hope that-
The Hon. T.G. Cameron interjecting:
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: In fact, if you talk to police individually, many police privately acknowledge that we really have to change the way that things are working. I urge all members to support this motion to disallow the regulation and let commonsense prevail.
The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY secured the adjournment of the debate.
