CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES (SIMPLE CANNABIS OFFENCES) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (10:31): I move:

That the Controlled Substances (Simple Cannabis Offences) Bill be restored to the Notice Paper as a lapsed bill pursuant to section 57 of the Constitution Act 1934.

This bill was initially raised in the other place a number of years ago, back in 2010. On 2 November 2010, I prepared a briefing paper for the Liberal Party joint party room on this bill. It is a very well-intentioned bill. The Liberal Party is very concerned that this sort of legislation should be brought into the place because we feel that the control of marijuana, not only other drugs but particularly marijuana, is something we need to continually emphasise and to amend legislation should we find that the current legislation is out of step with the best recommendations from the police, health professionals and other members of the public.

We also need to make sure that we are protecting people from themselves, in some cases. I am not in favour of a nanny state, but this is one area where the nature of the drug, the levels of toxicity (I think that is the correct word to use here) of marijuana that is consumed nowadays, are very different from what they were not so many years ago. The need to review this legislation should have come in 2010 but, for some reason, it did not. Parliament was prorogued and here we are again.

What we are trying to do here is reduce the amount of cannabis that you are permitted—that is probably the best word—to have in your possession for an expiable offence. The current situation in South Australia is that I think we still allow the highest amount of marijuana to be in your possession without having to face criminal charges; you can expiate the offence and for a relatively small sum compared with the value of the marijuana you might be carrying.

In the other place, the Hon. Ann Bressington pointed out in her second reading speech that the big issue with marijuana is the people who are growing it and then distributing it but, more importantly, it is the street level distributors who are exploiting the current situation. As she then described, it is the most effective pyramid selling scheme that has ever been developed.

The situation now is that, by allowing a person to be in possession of up to 100 grams, the expiation notice scheme allows a street dealer to be in possession of up to two 50-gram bag street deals, despite the potential retail value then (in 2010) of $1,250 (and I have no idea what marijuana costs nowadays), and the dealer would only face a fine of $300. Up to 100 grams for personal use can be broken down into 50 individual 2-gram bags which are then on-sold for about $25 a bag, which is a very profitable business for these people who are involved in distributing.

A $300 fine is clearly inadequate for somebody involved in the commercial dealing of drugs in any society, particularly in South Australia. We need to make sure we are being tough on drugs. We need to make sure that people who are peddling these drugs to other people suffer the consequences of their actions because it cannot be tolerated. There should be zero tolerance on this.

The fact is that in other states the levels that are accepted as being an expiable offence are far lower than we have had in South Australia for many years now, and I should go back to the figures that were used in 2010. There were over 5,200 expiation notices issued for possession of less than 25 grams of cannabis, but only 375 were issued for possession of more than 25 grams but less than 100 grams of cannabis. The Western Australians are reducing theirs—I think they may have done this by now—to 15 grams, and there was mention that it may even go as low as 10 grams, and we are way above that. The ACT is 25 grams.

We are completely out of step with the other states. We are out of step with the danger that marijuana is presenting to the people of South Australia. There is a case for medicinal use of marijuana, and there are varying opinions on that. I have looked at that as a genuine use of a pharmacological substance, and am still looking at it; but, certainly, in this particular case, where the people who are buying and selling marijuana are able to escape with a relatively small expiable fine, it is something that we need to change.

The correlation between the consumption of marijuana nowadays with the high levels of chemicals and toxins and mental health has been proven. The recreational use of marijuana is something I can never understand. I do like a glass of red wine, but not to excess, and certainly I like to be in control of my senses. With drugs, you never know what is going to happen. We talked about other drugs in this place just recently, but this particular piece of legislation should have been brought in a long time ago.

It is commonsense legislation. We are protecting people from themselves but, more importantly, we are protecting people who may quite innocently think that smoking marijuana and consuming marijuana is not a big deal. Well, it certainly is. It is a very big deal, and the consequences of their actions can be lifelong mental health problems, and we are still looking at the numbers of chemicals in marijuana that may affect the bodily systems. Tobacco once was considered okay, but we know now that is one of the biggest causes of death and disability in the world. It is the largest preventable cause of death in the world. It is the same with drugs and, in this case, marijuana.

I ask the house to support this legislation. It is sensible and very timely legislation. I do say that it is overdue, but it is timely that we continue to push hard with the changes, with the outlaw motorcycle gangs coming into South Australia. We know they like to think of themselves as being as pure as the driven snow, but they are involved in peddling these drugs. We know that there are people out there who are growing marijuana in their backyards and sheds. We regularly see police reports about this. That should be cracked down on. This legislation will go some way towards doing that. I ask the house to support the bill.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (10:40): I do not intend to speak for very long on this matter. I have been in this place for many years, and there are two issues that this house passed that I regret. One was the poker machine legislation, and the second was the cultivation of Indian hemp for personal use. At the time I was absolutely horrified that we could allow the planting of 10—the cultivation was up to 10—plants for personal use. It was through the government of the day, the Labor government and, of course, the Democrats, particularly the Hon. Michael Elliott, who pushed this strongly. Then, of course it was reduced to five plants. As a spin-off of that, we got the odious title of being the drug capital of Australia. Time has proven that it was a very bad move. I do commend the member for bringing this in this morning. Tolerance should be absolutely zero.

Living today, and being an older person, I do really feel for young people and the trials and tribulations that they have to put up with as they go through life. Most of them are confronted by drugs in one way or another. Yes, as the member for Morphett just said, I do not mind a drink myself. Yes, it is a drug, but like every other drug if you become dependent upon it you have got a problem. I make it a rule that I can go four or five days without having a single drink of alcohol, and that is what you absolutely have to do. The problem with cannabis—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr VENNING: My father went all his life without one, you're right, sir. And he had plenty of hair; maybe that's the reason I am bald. Talking about cannabis, marijuana, it is a drug, we know, and it does affect the mind; it alters your mind. Of course, when you are messing with your mind the damage is irreversible. Certainly, I say that I very much regret that the parliament allowed the personal use of 10 plants, which I think is blatantly wrong—I do not know what we were thinking about—and then, of course, we modified it to five. I cannot believe that today the rules are that you can have 100 grams of marijuana in your pocket without the heavy hand of the law coming upon you. I certainly congratulate the member for Morphett for bringing this in. I know our party is strongly behind him. I hope the parliament will debate this and pass it quickly.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (10:43): If you drink and drive you are a bloody idiot, and if you consume illegal drugs you are a bloody idiot. I support the member for Morphett wholeheartedly in his reintroduction of the Hon. Ms Bressington's bill, for quite a few reasons. I am cognisant of the fact that you cannot throw the book and impose maximum penalties on every single person who commits a crime, for good reasons. Not every crime requires maximum penalties, but also there is a very unavoidable reality about clogging up the legal system with a whole range of things. This is a very sensible suggestion; to bring South Australia into line with other states does make sense. The fact that it is toughening things up a little bit, reducing the allowable quantity and increasing the fine, makes great sense.

We know that the trafficking, the sale, distribution and consumption of illegal drugs is not an activity that knows state borders; so it does make good sense to align our rules with other states in this area. Otherwise, as member for Schubert alluded to, if you are a soft touch you will end up getting hit harder than other states. If we have an environment whereby the penalties are lower and the allowable quantities are higher, then it only makes sense that the people who want to traffic in this sort of substance will push more into our state than other states. I think we should be pushing as hard as possible back against that.

This does also give me the opportunity to speak about a Liberal Party policy that was announced by our leader, Steven Marshall, at the Police Association of South Australia meeting about two weeks ago, and that is about drug diversions.

It may well surprise members of this house to know that a person who is apprehended for a simple possession charge, essentially for possessing small amounts of recreational drugs, can elect—they get to elect—that, rather than being charged and going to court, they will take a drug diversion program. The idea of drug diversion programs has merit. It is quite conceivable that a person who has been caught out for doing something that is pretty stupid could get themselves back on the straight and narrow or back on track if they just got the right sort of advice. I am not saying that that is not sensible.

However, we have a situation in our state at the moment where the person who is apprehended for one of these minor drug possession charges can elect to avoid being prosecuted and going to court as many times as they like. There is one person in our state who has taken that option 14 times. So, 14 times that person has been found to have illegal substances in their possession and 14 times they have said, 'Yeah, look, you're right. I'm really sorry, it was a big mistake and I'm a bad boy. I will get myself back on track. Could I just have one more chance? Could I please just have one more chance to go off and participate in one of these programs, get some advice, and I guarantee that this time it will work.' Of course, that is absolutely preposterous. It is a waste of police resources.

Police officers have to then run around. They have to make the bookings. They have to try to find out when one of these program is running and are there any available spaces? They have to book them in. They have to follow up and see whether they have participated, instead of doing far more valuable work. Our policy is that a person caught in that situation has two chances. They have two chances to elect to participate in a drug diversion program, but on the third time bad luck. On the third time, when you have taken that opportunity twice and you have clearly not availed yourself of the benefits of that opportunity—on the third time, you are going to court, and I think that is very fair.

If you go to court, there is still the opportunity for a magistrate—if the magistrate sees fit to give this person a third chance, the magistrate can decide to do that, but the person who is apprehended cannot say, 'I will have a third chance. I will have fourth chance. I will have a fifth chance.' That person cannot take that opportunity as many times as they like. I think that will go a very long way towards addressing the important issue, towards reducing the desire, opportunity and ability for people to traffic drugs in our state, and towards confining the opportunity to elect to take that diversion to the people who are going to make good use of it. Sure, once or twice, make good use of it—good. We are glad that that opportunity helped you and got you back on track. However, the third time, you do not get to make that choice any more. The third time, we will let the magistrate make that choice as to whether that is something that is going to help you.

This will focus people's attention. If they are going to go to a drug diversion program, they will say, 'Well, hang on, I had better make good use of it because, you know what, I'm on my first or my second go. The third go, if I am that stupid, I won't get to do this again, so maybe I had better listen to what they are trying to tell me. Maybe I had better try to follow their advice.'

It will also free up some very importance and scarce police resources. Instead of police officers having to chase around these idiots and give them non-stop opportunities, the police can get back to their mainstream work. They can make sure that the person goes to court and allow the magistrate to decide whether he or she thinks that this person deserves a third chance. We are not ruling out the possibility that that might be warranted, but the possibility that the person who is apprehended should perpetually get to be the one who makes the decision about whether they deserve another chance is clearly silly.

This is a very important Liberal policy commitment, which was announced about two weeks ago at the Police Association meeting by our leader. I think it shows our bona fides in both trying to be sensible and serious about addressing this sort of drug issue but also being quite genuine about retaining the opportunity for people who might find themselves on the wrong side of the law to participate in these programs, but not forever.

There comes a time when you must forgo the opportunity to make that election yourself and hand that over to a clearly far more responsible person (that being the magistrate). I support the member for Morphett in his reintroduction of this important piece of potential legislation, which is actually about trying to toughen up by reducing the allowable quantities and increasing the applicable fine, and it fits very fairly and squarely with Liberal opposition policy in this area.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.