Senator CASH (Western Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (09:46): I’m actually very pleased that the Australian Greens have brought this private senator’s bill to the chamber, because the Australian parliament has just two days left to sit before we rise for the year and potentially go to a federal election. What this bill shows is the real danger that Australians will face if their worst nightmare comes true and they end up with a Labor-Greens minority government. It is a fact, as we stand here 2½ years into the Albanese government, that Australians are much worse off than they were when the Albanese government was elected, yet here we are, two days before this place rises, talking about the issue of legalising cannabis.

To be very clear, the coalition will not be supporting this bill. It is almost embarrassing, when you look at the drafting of this bill, that the Australian Greens thought it was a bill that should even be considered by this chamber. If you were serious, you would have had it properly drafted, which they haven’t. It is a bill that fails every policy test.

Let’s look, in the first instance, at the health implications. The Australian Greens are fond of saying—we heard it from Senator Shoebridge—that their approach is based on harm minimisation, and they have cited claims that this approach is health led. So, in terms of the health related impacts of this bill, let’s have a look at what the experts have actually said. The Australian Medical Association does not support the bill. Why does the pre-eminent medical association in Australia, which deals with health issues every single day—day in, day out—say it may increase health and social related harms? In fact, this is what it says:

This in turn may increase demand on an already overstretched healthcare system.

That was totally disregarded but the Australian Greens.

Then we have a look at another pre-eminent body, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. They too do not support the legalisation of cannabis. They say:

There is strong evidence that recreational cannabis is harmful, particularly to susceptible groups such as people with mental health disorders, young people and the unborn child.

Again, that was totally disregarded by the Australian Greens.

Then we have a look at the evidence from the chief medical people in the Health Products Regulation group at the Department of Health and Aged Care. Professor Langham said:

In terms of my own understanding of the adverse effects of cannabis on the human body, there are known issues with cardiovascular problems of the heart and pulmonary effects of the lungs; and also issues regarding acute use, chronic use and neuropsychiatric or mental disorders as well. There have been increasing reports of overdose and toxicity by minors with increasing use. Also, I suppose, there’s the other perhaps less easy to measure aspect of use, which is the risks on driving and impaired driving.

But, again, it was totally disregarded by the Australian Greens.

The Drug Advisory Council of Australia—I would have thought they’d know what they were talking about—don’t support it, and they said:

An overwhelming amount of evidence tells us that cannabis use causes significant harm to people’s physical, cognitive and mental health.

…   …   …

Cannabis use harms children, young people and families.

Again, this is an evidence based position founded on careful, systematic reviews of the effects of legalisation. They actually have looked at this before. The Drug Advisory Council of Australia is very clear in relation to this policy, saying, ‘The harms outweigh the benefits.’ For an alleged harm minimisation policy, that position from the Drug Advisory Council of Australia is, quite frankly, an absolute indictment.

So the evidence from the Australian Medical Association, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the chief medical officer in the Health Products Regulation group at the Department of Health and Aged Care and the Drug Advisory Council of Australia regarding the health impacts of this bill is overwhelming. Quite frankly, it would be folly for this Senate to ignore it.

Let’s now also look at the crimes and customs implications. Again, they are just dismissed by the Australian Greens. The bad news for the Australian Greens is that there are some of us in this place who actually take our roles as policymakers seriously. We look at the health benefits before we decide whether we should or should not support a bill. We also look at the very serious crime and customs implications. The first point is in relation to the way this bill is drafted. It would actually override customs law. That’s great news for Australians, isn’t it! Customs law is put in place to protect Australians and Australia, but this bill overrides it. The bill is drafted in such a way that Australian Border Force officials may be unable to do their job of regulating imports and exports. If you want to talk about organised crime and sending a message to them, Senator Shoebridge, wow! The way your bill is drafted, it well and truly does that.

The Department of Home Affairs has specifically warned that it overrides parts of the Export Control Act and the Criminal Code, but, again, the Australian Greens don’t seem to care about that. The Police Federation of Australia raised very clear concerns about basic road safety—good grief!—saying there is no nationally recognised and accepted regime for testing the impairment of a driver who tests positive to cannabis in their system, in the same manner as alcohol impairment is tested. But, hey, who cares? The Australian Greens clearly don’t. They also cited submissions from the Australian Federal Police Association about the impacts of decriminalisation in the ACT—remember, the government here went down this path in 2020—noting:

Subsequent analysis by ACT Policing of roadside drug test results, road accidents (including fatalities) and related intelligence holdings have demonstrated a marked increase in the use of cannabis in the ACT since decriminalisation.

It needs to be emphasised that this marked increase was detected through roadside drug tests. The Northern Territory Police have a view on this too:

The decriminalisation of cannabis would … result in disproportionately worse outcomes for Aboriginal communities when compared to non-Aboriginal communities.

Seriously; you have to be kidding me! The Greens didn’t properly analyse the impact of this bill on those who are most vulnerable.

Just to be very clear: police are clearly warning about an increase in drug driving and an inability to police that drug driving. That’s bad enough, but on top of that this may lead to serious injuries or fatalities and disproportionate adverse effect impacts on Indigenous communities in Australia. But, again, the Australian Greens—and this is a clear warning to all Australians. All commentators are now saying Australia is heading to a minority government. The misinformation bill may be dead at the moment but that’s only because the Greens didn’t think it went far enough; beware, Australia. More than that, can you imagine the deal the Australian Greens would do with Labor to legalise drugs in Australia.

If you don’t want to believe the health impacts, if you don’t want to believe the serious crime and customs implications—we spend taxpayers’ money in this place, so let’s have a look at the economic implications. In relation to this particular piece of poorly drafted legislation, the Australian Greens cited PBO costings claiming this policy would generate $28.2 billion in excise revenue over 10 years or potentially more if the excise is set higher. Is it actually going to go past that, though? What is not cited is the part where the PBO repeatedly describes this costing as, in the first instance, ‘highly uncertain’. That is not a great start for a piece of legislation that is currently up for debate in the Senate. They also say the actual outcomes may differ significantly.

What’s more, the costings themselves are based on a set of assumptions which in their own right are highly uncertain. One of the PBO key assumptions is that 12 per cent of the adult population would consume about six grams of cannabis per week. Economist Professor Jenny Williams puts it this way: ‘Basically, they’re using every single day.’ Professor Williams says this: ‘In fact, the current statistics indicate that just 1.68 per cent of Australians over 14 years of age are currently using cannabis every day.’ There is a big difference, I would have thought, in the Australian Greens’ costings and the fact that between 1.68 per cent of the population and 12 per cent of the adult population in Australia will be using just under one gram of cannabis a day. It is a blowout of more than 700 per cent of people who will be using cannabis every single day.

Even journalists at the ABC reporting on this bill said:

This could mean the Greens’ economic benefits are either wildly overstated or—

I can live with ‘wildly overstated’, but I cannot live with this—

predicated on a massive surge in uptake.

Shame on the Australian Greens! I’d like them to explain how they came up with that $28.2 billion figure. Are your economic benefits wildly overstated, or, alternatively—God help Australia—based on the massive upsurge in intake?

Let’s look at the legal implications. The Greens have added a clause that deliberately overrides every other Commonwealth law, past or future. Talk about an ambit claim; you’ve got to be kidding me! If they’re serious, then God help Australia in the event of a minority government. There is an obvious source of concern when they don’t know what laws they’re overriding. What Commonwealth laws are being overridden? That’s not explained. And why are they being overridden?

There are some other oddities in the bill. The first example is that the bill makes clear that a person needs to pay a fee for a licence to sell cannabis or to register a cannabis strain unless they are an Indigenous person or a body corporate controlled by one or more Indigenous persons. I don’t even know where to go with that clause, quite frankly, in particular if we go back to the impact on Indigenous people.

Another example is they have included a clause that says that as long as a state or territory law is ‘capable of operating concurrently’ then it will not be overridden, but then there is another clause that directly overrides state and territory laws. Despite any other law of the Commonwealth, a state or a territory under this bill, a person cannot be charged with an offence related to possession of minors. I hope the Greens haven’t looked at this, because if they have and they actually know this is what their bill does—shame on you! I’m glad we are debating this in the last 48 hours, potentially, that this place could be sitting, because it is a clear warning to the Australian people: if you think it’s bad now, my God, it can get a hell of a lot worse with an Australian Greens and Anthony Albanese Labor government.

There are some other obvious questions. Which state and territory laws are capable of operating concurrently? Nobody seems to know. How does the bill deal with offences around distribution of drugs? Will the bill override other laws intended for the protection of children? How does it interact with laws around the distribution of vapes? Is the bill even Constitutional? That is actually a threshold issue. The committee report on the bill sets out an extraordinary direction on the Greens’ legal advice, and it’s worth reading from the report. The committee was led to understand that the Greens have obtained Constitutional advice on their bill, and it says:

The Australian Greens’ legal advice was provided by Professor Keyzer. Professor Keyzer gave oral evidence to the committee that the Commonwealth has power to enact the Bill …

The problem is this: the committee expresses concerns that the bill is not Constitutional and Professor Keyzer was not able to produce written advice. He suggested he may have lost it. Is that some type of weird joke? Seriously! Constitutional advice and you think you’ve lost it? Just go to your computer or download it. Or don’t you have it? He also said he was not aware of any other academic or Constitutional lawyer that had taken the same view. You have got to be kidding me! The bill is flawed. It is ideology masquerading as economic policy. It is sloppy, it is harmful and it should not be passed by the Senate. But I’m so glad we’re debating it, because if you think it’s bad now, under Albanese and the Greens it’s going to get a hell of a lot worse.