Bills

Statutes Amendment (Drug Offences) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 21 June 2018.)

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (12:03): I rise today to speak on the Statutes Amendment (Drug Offences) Bill, such as it stands at present. The bill makes a number of amendments to the Controlled Substances Act 1984, including limiting the number of drug diversions to two in four years, reviewing the penalties in the Controlled Substances Act, generally, and increasing the penalties—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Elizabeth, are you the lead speaker?

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes, I am the lead speaker; I so declare.

The SPEAKER: Noted.

Mr ODENWALDER: As I said, the amendments will be increasing the penalties generally for cannabis possession. In the Minister for Education's second reading speech, on behalf of the Attorney, the minister advised that people who are found in possession of drugs must be given the opportunity currently to participate in an accredited drug diversion program (this is under the current regime), that there is no limit to the number of times an offender can participate in these programs and that some offenders use participation in these programs as a way of avoiding more serious punishment.

The bill limits the number of drug diversions a person can participate in to two in four years. It is my understanding—and perhaps the Attorney can take this on notice—that following consultation the government reduced the limit of drug diversions to two in a four-year period from two in a 10-year period, but we will await some clarification about that and perhaps some advice about why that change was made in the Attorney's second reading response and, indeed, what evidence they have that limiting drug diversions in this way will improve outcomes for drug offenders. There have been some suggestions in some quarters that this is not the case, and the Law Society in particular, who I know the Attorney has a lot of respect for, have advised on this matter, so I would be interested to hear the Attorney's views about that.

The department advises that these amendments will see approximately 1,400 fewer people receiving drug diversions. That means, of course, that they will be entering the justice system instead. It is unknown what impact this will have on the corrections system. Will we see an increase in people being incarcerated and for what kinds of offences? Again, I would ask the Attorney to perhaps address that in her second reading response.

Penalties have also been increased for a number of other offences, including trafficking, the manufacture of controlled drugs for sale, the sale and manufacture of controlled precursor, the cultivation of controlled plants for sale, the sale of controlled plants, the sale of equipment, the sale of instructions, the sale of equipment to a child for use in connection with the consumption of controlled drugs, the sale of instructions to a child, the supply or administration of a controlled drug, the manufacture of controlled drugs, the cultivation of controlled plants, the possession or consumption of a controlled drug, etc., the possession or supply of prescribed equipment, the possession or supply of instructions, the possession or supply of a prescribed quantity of controlled precursor, the international manufacture of controlled drug alternatives and promoting controlled drug alternatives.

In general, I indicate that the opposition supports these measures. There will be obviously some questions in the committee stage, and perhaps in the other place as well, but in general we are supportive of that. I come now to the more contentious part of the bill, which of course is the measures relating to cannabis. In the lead-up to the election, the government made quite a deal of the fact that they were intent on winning the war on drugs. I would be interested to know how that war is going. The election commitment was—and I quote here from the manifesto, the plan; what was it the 'strong plan', chief whip?

Mr Brown: Strong action plan.

Mr ODENWALDER: Strong action plan.

Mr Brown: 'A strong plan for real change'.

Mr ODENWALDER: 'A strong plan for real change'. I quote from that document:

A Marshall Liberal Government will firstly ensure the maximum penalties for cannabis possession are increased from the current maximum of—

Members interjecting:

Mr ODENWALDER: We will fix it up.

Mr Boyer: A real plan for strong change.

Mr ODENWALDER: A real plan for strong change. The quote continues:

$500 to $2000, which is in line with maximum penalties for drug possession offences.

So the stated intention was to increase the penalties and to indicate to the public that the government saw cannabis as as serious a drug as some of the other drugs listed in the Controlled Substances Act.

Then, out of the blue, it seemed (I think it was a Monday morning), we read about the 'War on weed' in The Advertiser and we read that the government was considering two-year jail penalties for simple cannabis possession. I cannot remember a bigger misstep on the part of a government in relation to these matters than that.

I understand that the Attorney is moving away from that and will lodge some amendments relating to that provision, but it raises the question of what happened in the first place and why gaol time was originally included as a penalty. I think that perhaps someone in the campaign team got a bit excited. I cannot imagine that the Attorney thinks this is a good idea. I just cannot imagine that she thinks it is a good idea. There is a theory that it was her idea and that the public outcry was so bad that she went to cabinet and she was rolled by her cabinet.

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: Rubbish.

Mr ODENWALDER: I agree that is probably rubbish. I have too much respect for the Attorney to believe that version of events. I believe that others thought this was a good idea but that the Attorney probably did not and that the Attorney returned to cabinet after the public outcry and said, 'I told you this was a terrible idea.' Perhaps in fact the Minister for Transport thought this might be a good idea. In any case, we will never know. These are cabinet deliberations; we will never know the truth.

The member for Waite raised my very successful survey; I assume he was referring to my Facebook survey. I took an unscientific poll of the electorate in relation to these matters, and a full 95 per cent of the 7,500 people who responded thought that sending people to gaol for cannabis possession is not a good idea. The ABC ran a similar unscientific poll which had exactly the same result. Interestingly, while these are of course unscientific polls—they are Facebook polls—they reflect exactly the statistics in the National Drug Strategy Household Survey. A full 95 per cent of the people polled across Australia in that survey do not support custodial sentences for cannabis possession.

The Hon. S.K. Knoll: You do know that the majority of the public also support the death penalty, so I'll wait for that private member's bill.

Mr ODENWALDER: I look forward to that. In any case, the Minister for Transport—I know it is unparliamentary to respond to interjections—

The Hon. D.C. van Holst Pellekaan: But it was a good one.

Mr ODENWALDER: Well, it is worthy of a response, because the Attorney was swayed by public opinion. She was swayed by the 95-odd per cent demonstrably opposed to this measure, and I am glad that she was. As I said before, I do not believe it was her idea. I cannot believe she thought it was a good idea, and I am glad that she has removed it. It saves us from attempting to remove it in the other place.

I understand that SAPOL will retain the discretion to issue expiation notices; however, I have been advised that the amount for which a notice can be issued may also be reviewed at a later date. I will be asking the Attorney some questions about that in the committee stage because I think the expiation system in relation to cannabis is important. We need to keep that in tact as much as possible, or at least be very, very careful about amending it. As I understand it, you can amend it by regulation. I believe you could arguably reduce the expiable amount to zero by regulation without even coming into this house, but again, I will be asking the Attorney about that in the committee stage.

On a final point, I want to flag that during the committee stage I will be asking the Attorney about the impact on both medical marijuana (medical cannabis) and industrial hemp. I think there have been assurances that this legislation will not affect those particular matters. I just want to clarify that, so I just flag that at this stage. With those words, I indicate Labor's general support for these amendments. It is important that we address drugs as a law and order issue and as a health issue. I indicate our general support pending possible amendments.

Mr MURRAY (Davenport) (12:13): I rise to speak in favour of the Statutes Amendment (Drug Offences) Bill 2018. I note the contribution of the member for Elizabeth, and I would like to take the opportunity to very briefly address the points he made. There was some confusion about the plan that the Liberal Party took to the last election—

Mr Odenwalder: The real plan for strong change?

Mr MURRAY: Exactly, so I thought it might be a bit easier to refer to it as the—

Members interjecting:

Mr MURRAY: Or, alternatively, we could refer to it as the 'successful plan'. That is the one we took to the election that we won.

Mr Odenwalder: Well, the plan hasn't been successful yet; you won the election.

Mr MURRAY: From where I am standing, it was very successful. I make the point that part of that success is no doubt attributable to the fact that we listened to people before and during the campaign, and we will continue to listen. It is not just that we took a policy that was hard-wired. We will continue to consider input from other people, from health professionals, and from the law enforcement community.

In rising to speak to the bill, I do so with two loose personal connections to some of the origins of the bill. I have a nephew who personally knew, went to school with and was in fact quite close physically to young Lewis McPherson the night that he was killed, which, as you can imagine, engendered a considerable 'what if' analysis. The perpetrator was also well known to that cohort.

I think it is important to remind the house and to remember that a large number of these changes have come about because of recommendations made by the Coroner, having reviewed the very sad facts of the wholly unnecessary death of that teenager. It was on New Year's Eve that a young life was taken away in very tragic circumstances by someone who was drug addled and who had a track record. That is part of the genesis of this bill. I think the lessons that motivated the Coroner to make his recommendations, which we seek to insert into the bill, are very worthy of consideration moving forward.

In a similar vein, through extended family in the southern suburbs of Adelaide I have a family member who has plied a trade in psychiatry. The very sad facts are that a considerable number of patients who present themselves for psychiatric assistance can attribute a large part of their issues to the consumption of cannabis. I will speak on that more broadly later, but essentially the drug does not act the same way for all people. Where people are predisposed, it can be a particularly sinister drug and, as a result, is worthy of some censure, consideration and control.

The bill has five main parts and limits the drug diversions that are available and increases the maximum penalty for cannabis possession. In so doing, the bill brings the penalties for controlled substances into line with so-called community expectations. The bill also ensures that there are specific penalties for members of organised crime and organisations involved in crimes involving controlled substances. If organised crime is involved, then the penalties escalate accordingly.

Given the circumstances, the bill enables a court, insofar as sentencing is concerned for a controlled substance related offence, to take into account situations where a child has been present. To be clear, the illegal use, the consumption, etc., of the drugs in question in the presence of a child is something that a court can take into account. For obvious reasons, that effectively amounts to an aggravation of the penalty in question.

We are doing this because many of the penalties for possession, trafficking and manufacturing of drugs have largely remained unchanged since 1984, when the current drug laws were introduced. Over this time the nature of drug crime has changed significantly, and community expectations about punishing drug offenders have also changed. Fundamentally, one of the primary reasons we are doing this is to bring the penalties from 1984, back when some of us had mullets, for example—and yes, I can see a show of hands—into 2018 and make them more current as a result.

Insofar as drug diversions are concerned, people currently found in possession of drugs must be provided with the opportunity to participate in an accredited drug diversion program. The program is not open to people who have tested positive for drugs at a roadside test, and there is no limit on the number of times an offender can participate in a program. As a consequence, some offenders have continually opted to take part as a way of avoiding more serious punishment. That is a standard assessment of where we are. We have 1984-style penalties and some fairly significant holes in the legislation.

A 10-year review of the program revealed that whilst compliance with diversions was high, it tended to decrease as the number of diversions per individual increased. So regarding the point that the member for Elizabeth made earlier about evidence, a 10-year review has indicated that compliance is good unless the number of diversions for an individual climbed when, not surprisingly, the compliance went in the opposite direction. The point needs to be made that drug diversions are an expensive exercise and allow offenders to avoid court proceedings and, therefore, more serious penalties. Again, that is hardly in keeping with community expectations.

With this bill, we are proposing that the number of drug diversions permitted, where a person commits a simple possession offence, is now limited to two in any four-year period. The amendments prevent offenders taking advantage of the system and going through a diversion program again and again, thereby avoiding any criminal penalties for their offending. So the first point in regard to the bill is that it does close that loophole; it does enable the use of diversions in a situation where it is a once-off or even a twice-off event in any four-year period, but it prevents the permanent use of the loophole for those who are minded to take advantage of it.

The bill increases the penalty for simple cannabis possession to $2,000. The push for increased cannabis penalties follows a recommendation, as I said earlier, from the Deputy Coroner, Anthony Schapel's, inquest into the murder of teenager Lewis McPherson on New Year's Eve 2012, who was shot in the chest by a drunk and drugged Liam Humbles. Last year, Mr Schapel recommended:

The maximum monetary penalty for the offences of possession, smoking and consumption of cannabis, cannabis resin and cannabis oil be increased from $500 to a figure that reflects the deleterious effects that the consumption of those substances can have on the individual, especially the young.

Cannabis is currently the illicit drug most commonly used by secondary school students. It has a maximum penalty of just $500, a penalty which has not increased in 33 years. Further, in practice, fines imposed for cannabis possession under 25 grams are only $150, similar to the penalty for jaywalking and—I am extemporising here—probably roughly a quarter of the average speeding fine.

Insofar as cannabis and its effects are concerned, some of the research, some of the reading, makes the point that up to a quarter of people diagnosed with schizophrenia may also have a cannabis use disorder. Cannabis can cause paranoia, delusions and hallucinations in people who do not already have a mental illness and can also trigger or worsen psychotic symptoms in people living with illnesses like schizophrenia even when the illness is otherwise stable.

Cannabis can trigger a psychotic illness in susceptible people. A very important point is that it has not yet been demonstrated whether cannabis can cause a psychotic illness in someone who is not otherwise susceptible. People who are susceptible are susceptible by virtue of their genetic make-up, their mother's health during pregnancy, complications with their birth, child abuse, some kind of head injury, etc.

People who are susceptible, as a result of a whole variety of conditions, whether they are environmental or genetic, can end up with fairly severe psychotic symptoms as a result of the consumption of cannabis. It is not just dependent upon who the purchaser or consumer is. It is not just a simple matter of a temporary high; it can have very serious side effects. As I said, I have some personal knowledge of the degree to which it contributes to the mental health load, particularly in the southern suburbs, and also, I suspect, in all suburbs, including the north.

In terms of other penalties, the bill makes amendments to several of the penalties for offences contained in part 5 of the Controlled Substances Act. Again, these are a result of a review. The bill adds a new type of offence called 'serious drug offending'. A person becomes a serious drug offender and is therefore liable for higher penalties if they commit two or more part 5 drug offences in 10 years. The offence is on top of, or in addition to, the current lower penalty for simple possession and the higher penalty for aggravated offences.

Insofar as organised crime is concerned, the bill, in increasing fines for serious drug offenders, also requires increases to aggravated offences to ensure consistency. Currently, an offence is an aggravated offence if a person is linked to an organised crime organisation. The bill goes on to add 13 new offences in the aggravated category: sale of equipment to a child for use in connection with consumption of controlled drugs; the manufacture of controlled drugs; the cultivation of controlled plants; possession or supply of prescribed quantities of a controlled precursor; intentional manufacture of controlled drug alternatives; promoting controlled drug alternatives, i.e. synthetic drugs or drugs made with illegal chemicals; and manufacturing, packaging, selling or supply of a substance promoted as a controlled drug.

The intent of the act is not just to tighten up and bring a more contemporary perspective to simple cannabis cultivation and/or possession but, in addition, to aggregate the penalties for those who traffic in the drug, those who seek to profit from its use and, in some circumstances, particularly where there is a predisposition to side effects from the drug, those who profit from its consequent miseries. I commend those measures to the house.

As I described earlier, there is an additional perspective provided by the bill in circumstances where children are present. This is now a determining factor available to the court for consideration when affixing or determining a penalty. This ensures that in the case of an offence against section 33, which includes the manufacturing, cultivation, possession and sale offences, the court must consider whether a child was present at any stage when the offence occurred. Again, what we are seeking to do is break the nexus between children and the drug industry in its particularity. This was a recommendation of the former government's Ice Taskforce and, again, I commend to the house its insertion into the bill.

This bill reflects community sentiment and observes the recommendations made by professionals in the health and law and order spheres. It is specially drafted, aimed at the protection of our young and, on that basis, I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General) (12:28): I thank members for their contributions and the member for Elizabeth for his indication, on behalf of the opposition, of the general support to the thrust of this bill, upon noting a foreshadowed amendment, which he welcomes. May I say that, if I were to generally summarise the impetus for the reform in this legislation, it is the recognition that cannabis, amongst all our elicit drugs can no longer, in 2018, be treated as though it is something just a little bit more serious than tobacco.

I am old enough to remember a time when that was the accepted norm. Partaking in cannabis smoking was seen as a socially acceptable recreational activity. Back in those days, if you were a uni student, or at a TAFE college or a teachers' college or whatever, and this was an activity you imbibed in, then it was almost acceptable, so much so that it became quite common in the 1980s for prime ministers and premiers to be asked, 'Did you ever inhale when you were at school, university or college?'

Mr Odenwalder: That's my first question.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: I am happy to tell the house that I did not either smoke it or inhale it. It was not something I was interested in. Nevertheless, it was treated in a very different manner. Certainly, a lot of evidence over the last 20 or 30 years has developed to question whether sustained use of this drug has a deleterious effect on the health of the user. It has become increasingly apparent that psychiatrists, and particularly other people in the mental health area, identify this as a precursor to schizophrenia and hallucinations. To summarise, the effect is most commonly to be psychotic, in addition to other behaviour.

Certainly, great concern was raised about the impact on sociably acceptable behaviour when using it or after a period of sustained use. Because this was one of the drugs of choice in the sixties and seventies, it probably took some decades to consider this, test it and identify whether it had a long-term effect. In the 2017 coronial inquest into young Lewis McPherson's fatal shooting, the Coroner had a contemporary assessment of this. Reporting in that coronial inquest, he clearly identified his grave concern about the effect of this drug on the user of the gun in that instance.

He sent out a very clear plea in his recommendations and findings that this matter was serious. The other young man who used the gun was under the influence. It was one of the features of his demeanour in the lead-up to that shooting. It had to be treated seriously. The opposition, as we were at the time, took the view that this was something that could not go unattended. We expressed some disappointment that the previous government had not acted on this—even before the coronial inquiry, it was known that this played a feature in that death—but that was not going to happen.

We then committed to the public in the lead-up to the last election that if we had the honour of office we would pursue this matter and that we would treat cannabis in a manner that is as serious as for other illicit drugs. It is one thing to say that cannabis is not really the drug of choice anymore, that it is not the really big deal and that everyone has moved on to ice. Members need to understand that, sure, drugs of choice change, but that does not mean that everyone has abandoned heroin, other methamphetamines, pills or cannabis. It means that the social movement of illicit drugs has gone into other areas that are usually cheaper, more accessible and more potent for the value for money, able to be manufactured more easily, etc.

I am told by the toxicology division of Forensic Science SA that we now have a situation in Australia where there is new drug being manufactured every week. The reason we have new drugs manufactured by the bad guys is that they want it to be undetectable either at a crime scene or in the bloodstream of the user. Our toxicology experts have to work harder again to examine the new product, identify what is in it and then work out ways of testing its presence in their work, which supports our criminal justice system and our health system.

We came to this on the basis that the McPherson coronial inquiry was a lightning bolt into an understanding of what the real situation is, and we took up that issue. In coming into office, we brought to this legislation a number of areas in relation to penalty increases, which we had committed to, and the establishment of aggravated offences, which was not uncommon for the previous government to do. However, as we identified the more serious aspects of a crime or the aspects that ought to be elevated to a higher penalty—for example, when children were used to commit an offence—then we needed to have an aggravated category, and we have a two-tier system. This is nothing new in the law, but we felt in this area it needed to be added.

If I understand the member for Elizabeth's contribution, he is not averse to that. He understands the significance of what we are trying to do there, right across to the field of manufacturing. Where there was clearly some indication in the consultation process by the Law Society, for whom we do have high regard, and others in the community, that the penalty, specifically at the very lower end—that is, for possession and personal use of cannabis—we included in the proposal, commensurate with other offences, the $500 to $2,000 penalty or the imprisonment term because that is entirely consistent with the other legislation.

As has been acknowledged, we were living in the dark ages with penalties for this: back in 1984, jaywalking resulted in a greater fine than possession of cannabis. Clearly something had to be done, but the response we had indicated that the simple possession offence should not attract a gaol term as an option. I remind members that in this proposal we have a continuation of the capacity for expiation processing of these, so there is no diminution of that, but sentencing into prison was not considered an option.

The Legal Services Commission, the Law Society, SAPOL and SA Health all gave different views. The Courts Administration Authority, Chief Justice, Chief Magistrate and Judge of the Youth Court had not identified any issues of major concern but some of the others had. What I think we ought to be mindful of, and did not weigh heavily on my mind, was that a number of those from the public who did respond to the consultation on this matter were people who were strong advocates of the decriminalisation of cannabis completely.

I want to make it absolutely clear that that is not my position, it is not the government's position and it is not the Liberal Party's position. We consider that this drug is in the Controlled Substances Act for good reason and we are not on a course of decriminalisation. I think we have the support of the opposition in that regard, but there are some people in our parliament, in the general community and many in the Greens movement, who take the view that there should be no penalty whatsoever and that it should be absolutely decriminalised. That is fine. They have their view. I do not agree with it. We on this side of the house do not agree with it.

When they contact us to say that it is outrageous that it is proposed that someone go to prison for a cannabis offence, I read that within the envelope of their complete rejection of cannabis being an illicit drug and we end at that point any recognition of that for the purposes of their objection. However, we have considered the feedback from what I would call the legitimate arguments—the stakeholders in the community for whom we have regard and whom we recognise need some modification, and that is exactly what we are doing.

I am pleased to say that we have support from the opposition on the other matters that are still extant. A number of issues were raised. By way of clarity, one was in relation to the diversion practice. As members might understand, we have a Nunga court, a domestic violence court and a drug court. We have speciality courts in South Australia and we have had for decades.

The Drug Court is one that operates as a means by which someone can come before it, have their crime acknowledged, enter a plea of guilty and commit to undertaking a course of treatment for the purposes of helping them with their possible addiction or their practice or in relation to using a drug, but also, significantly, to avoid the road of prosecution and sentencing in the normal criminal process. It has been a measure that has been around for a long time. What we have found, in the course of looking at drug reform, is that some people used the Drug Court as a means to get out of having to be prosecuted.

Repeatedly, they would put their hand up and say, 'I am guilty. I will elect to go to the Drug Court. I will go and do a six-month program. I will have a course of medication and counselling, or whatever, in relation to my drug addiction. I will submit to that, so let me off.' SAPOL were one of the agencies that brought this to our attention. They thought those people were exploiting the system, abusing the process and not really genuinely committing to do something to reform their behaviour, but in fact were just avoiding prosecution and conviction.

We felt on this side of the house that it was something we needed to do something about. Initially, in this regard, we considered that someone could have two attempts to do this in a 10-year period and then they would be disqualified from being able to use it again as a sort of diversion, essentially as a means of discipline and not letting them exploit the system. It was also to stop wasting police resources because they are the ones who arrest these people, take it through the court process, set up appointments for drug treatment that they do not turn up to and follow up on them and bring them back into custody perhaps or issue another summons.

It is a huge amount of police time, not to mention those people who sit there waiting at the drug testing clinic or at the facility that has scheduled time and professional expertise to help these people and they do not turn up, or they turn up for the first two sessions, tick that off and think nobody will notice anymore so they will not go to the last three sessions. An abuse of this process is simply not acceptable when we have precious resources that we need to target to those who need help and are prepared to have help and not to those who just waste their time and end up back in the court system anyway. So we have more court time, wasted police time, wasted professional drug counselling time and people who just exploit the system.

When we further consulted on this, some people in the health areas, for example, raised with me that for some of our drugs there may be a number of relapses which, given the history of taking of drugs—that is, the frequency and the time over which they have taken their drugs and the nature of the drug—their capacity, as well intentioned as they might be, may be difficult, and a relapse is likely and therefore they need an extra bit of time. Excluding them for 10 years is probably a bit too far. We needed to look at two chances within four years.

That modification has been made in the preparation of this bill. I am quite open about that because I think it is important that we protect as best we can the principle that for many people drug addiction, partaking in drugs and experimenting with drugs does become a health issue. They are sufficiently into it to know that they have a problem, but they are committed to get out of it and they need health resources to do it. We want to help them do that. We do not want to exclude the opportunity for genuine people who say, 'Look, I'm ready to do this.'

As a separate issue, we are progressing legislation where appropriate to have court orders made for children to be able to have that treatment. That is another part of the arm of the war on drugs and the protection of our children that we are pursuing. If we come back to this bill specifically, we listened to how we might advance the health options and make it absolutely clear that we needed to contemporise punishment for those who were already in the criminal lists, especially at the manufacturing end, and make it harder and more difficult with higher penalties for those who might use vulnerable people, including children, to sell drugs around schoolyards and things of that nature. We are very clear about that.

In one small part of this we say that imprisonment for two years does not have wholesale support. We as a government, with the support of the opposition, are determined to do everything we can to deal with drug use and abuse and to make sure that we get these other advances and reforms through. We do not want that delayed. We will peel that off in relation to the imprisonment proposal for personal consumption.

Finally, the member raised the matter of expiation, which I think I have indicated still continues. I am happy to answer the detail on that in committee. In relation to a reduction in drug diversions and the effect that might have on the courts, what I can provide to the house—and I think it is appropriate that I do so in committee with the advice of the department—is some data in relation to the noncompliance that occurs after the first or second attempt to help people in drug diversion as an illustration of how we are time wasting at the moment, bearing in mind that this cohort of people invariably ends up in the system anyway for punishment, usually by a fine.

We do not anticipate a greater incidence necessarily of incarceration at the lower end of the scale. I hope this has the effect of ensuring that the penalties, and potentially time in gaol at the higher end of the scale are increased. I do not think there will be any change in the numbers that go in, but if they are in gaol longer because they have manufactured drugs, then we support that. It may be that they will spend some extra time there, which is another challenge for our Minister for Correctional Services, but our government has made that commitment and we are honouring it in this legislation.

The final thing was in relation to medicinal use and industrial hemp. I note two things. Firstly, in relation to industrial hemp, this is the capacity now to be able to cultivate hemp on a commercial basis. We have legislation that not only provides for that but protects against any prosecution. It does set out quite a strict regime as to who can do it and the licensing terms for doing it. That is not the subject of the Controlled Substances Act reforms that we are doing here.

I turn secondly to what is commonly called medical marijuana. I am personally a great supporter of the significant research that is being undertaken into this miracle drug, really, in relation to children who might be epileptic, for example, who appear, with cannabis oil, to have very different behavioural outcomes. It is fantastic to see. I think if I were to give members any kind of analogy here, we use prescription drugs every day that are opiate based, and they do great work. Morphine and other painkillers are important parts of the prescription medications that help to minimise suffering of people every day. They are prescribed every day, and they are used universally.

However, we also have heroin, also an opiate, which if used without prescription is illegal because it is a controlled substance and is dangerous in terms of human consumption. Again we will have people in the community who argue, 'Heroin should be legalised. It is unsafe for us to continue to keep it in our criminal code because you are not going to stop it. Prohibition has never worked. Just look at the 1930s in the United States. We should legalise it, and then we can manage the industries that create it, and it can be sold and administered as though it is any other product.'

Personally I do not support that, and certainly on this side of the house we are not about to rush in and legalise heroin, but I use it as an example of where under prescription, under medical supervision, it provides an important part of the support for our medical treatment, but it cannot be under our current law made available as some kind of recreational drug. So, too, I say with the use of cannabis oil for medicinal use of marijuana, as they call it. That process has had considerable attention at the federal level.

There is currently an approved process that enables someone who has a child or family member—or it could be for themselves—to get a prescription from a medical practitioner and then go to a pharmacy outlet to purchase cannabis oil for that purpose. As I understand it, I think it is a bit of an interim process for those who are currently converts to this, who say, 'We desperately need it for our children,' etc. The federal government has announced that that is a process available to them.

Some people who use cannabis oil for medical reasons do not want to go down that course. I have met some of them in the course of consultation. They say, 'I get a supply on the internet. I buy it locally, and there is risk of me being prosecuted or the provider of the cannabis oil being prosecuted.' That is a choice they make. They say they do not want to have the risk of going to a doctor and the doctor saying, 'No, you or your child do not need this,' and therefore not getting the prescription. That is what they tell me.

In any event, it is a developing area of reform, licensing and protection through the federal system. There is an interim measure to ensure that, for those who strongly rely on it and feel it has merit, who want to access it and feel they need to access it, they are able to continue to do so. I expect that will develop into clearer access in due course. I would say to those who are buying it from people who are growing and preparing it illegally, or are buying it on the internet, it does concern me not just as the Attorney-General but also as the Minister for Consumer and Business Affairs.

As a consumer, people place themselves at risk by purchasing medication which has not gone through an approved process. It may or may not be pure, it may or may not be laced with something more dangerous, and it may or may not be effective or value for money. You are vulnerable if you purchase offline, so to speak—or in this case, online. You are not protected by the prescription process and the standards in relation to drug manufacture for pharmacy products.

I hope that makes it clear to the member for Elizabeth. This is not intended in any way, nor does it have any impact or impinge on, the legitimate development of medicinal marijuana use under the current federal process. Nor will it affect the commercial Indian hemp cultivation which we have progressed under the blessing of statute.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr ODENWALDER: I thank the Attorney for that comprehensive second reading response. It did answer a lot of the questions. I will not trouble the house for very long, although I suspect we will run up against lunch shortly. I have some questions regarding some consultations if you can spare the time. The Attorney spoke about consultation with the Law Society.

I have the Law Society's initial response to the bill dated 14 June. Unless I am not reading it correctly, they do not appear to mention the custodial sentences issue. In the Attorney's second reading moments ago, she indicated that the Law Society expressed some concerns about the custodial sentences for cannabis. I just wonder if there is a further submission or if it was an oral submission of some sort.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: As the member may have noted in the commentary on this matter, the President of the Law Society has actually made public comment on this and certainly members of the society have spoken to me. I have of course taken into account some of the publications (for example, the opinion piece by the President of the Law Society), and that issue has been made clear. I would have to look through the Law Society submission from 14 June, which is the one I have, as I cannot recall offhand. I just remind the member that the Law Society publishes its submissions online, so if there is another one that I have missed, I expect the opinion piece will also be there.

Just before we break, there is one matter I wish to be clear on in relation to the drug courts. I am advised—I thank my adviser for making sure—that when I say that a drug court gives a chance for people who are charged with drug offences to have drug diversions, in fact a drug court is there for people who claim to be under the influence of drugs when they commit other offences. I am sorry if I misled the house in any way; I wanted that to be clear.

We have another diversion system, and we also have a new catch-and-release system and other things. The diversion system is one where some assessment is done before prosecution to enable that to occur and there is no charge. Sometimes it is very helpful to give that option, especially where there is a known problem and known circumstance, such as relapse. That keeps the person out of the system, and it will continue.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00.