Drug Misuse and Trafficking (Hydroponic Cultivation) Bill 2006
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: On the behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I speak to the Drug Misuse and Trafficking (Hydroponic Cultivation) Bill. The object of the bill is to amend the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 and other legislation to more appropriately prosecute the production of cannabis by hydroponic or other enhanced indoor means. The measures are aimed at organised commercial production that takes place within residences.
Recently I read that the financial size of the illicit cannabis industry is as big as our nation’s total gold industry, twice the size of our nation’s wine industry and three-quarters the size of our nation’s beer industry. This is an astonishing fact given that we are comparing legal with illegal industries. Clearly, law enforcement authorities have their hands full endeavouring to eliminate this illicit practice from our communities.
Every now and again we hear calls from various groups that claim that because the commercial cannabis industry has become so widespread, this is sufficient reason to legalise the use of and trading in cannabis. However, I firmly believe that these calls constitute one of the great policy paradoxes of modern times because for those who desire to have cannabis legalised, and thus, take a more relaxed and liberal attitude towards so-called “soft drugs” such as marijuana, it sits uncomfortably with their resistance towards the big business legalised drugs of tobacco and alcohol.
This is most ironic. In my opinion, all these drugs are extremely dangerous substances and the Government must take strong and decisive measures to protect the community from them wherever possible. Just because cannabis is seen by some as a little Rastafarian and tobacco is a little multinational does not justify taking an inconsistent approach. We should place the physical and mental health of our communities at the forefront. For example the New South Wales Health Centre for Drug and Alcohol produced a report this year entitled, “Cannabis and Associated Physical and Mental Health Risks: A Survey of Research Evidence”. Unlike the previous speaker who gave us some good ideas, but not much evidence, this is based upon a survey of research evidence, and found that cannabis has a detrimental effect on the cardiovascular system; when smoked, cannabis harms the respiratory and immune systems; reproductive organs can be harmed through frequent use; foetal development can be impaired; cannabis warps perception, reactions are slowed, motor skills are impaired and concentration is more difficult; and can cause premature ageing in the area of the brain responsible for short-term memory—hippocampus—can be caused by habitual use.
Cannabis has also been linked to slowed brain development and brain damage through frequent use, particularly if consumed at a young age. Chronic use of cannabis is linked to high rates of depression, anxiety and lack of motivation in long-term users. For the past five years I have been responsible for the purchase and building of a number of mental hospitals. Up until just recently I was responsible for 72 psychiatrists on my staff. In the 1980s I began to notice the strong increase in the number of young adults with schizophrenia and I asked our psychiatrists to take note of any link between cannabis use and psychosis, particularly schizophrenia. Today, of course, this is acknowledged. These serious findings should be strongly noted. According to the Australian Crime Commission, in its illicit Australian Drug Data Report 2004-2005, the most common method of cannabis cultivation is by using hydroponics, and the majority of cannabis consumed in Australia is domestically produced. The Commission makes the following point:
The cannabis market is not as sophisticated as other illicit drug markets due to the relative ease of production and potential high profits. The majority of cannabis consumed in Australia is domestically produced, with outdoor and hydroponic cultivation prolific in all states and territories. While large outdoor bush plots ranging in size from one to tens of thousands of plants remain common, the most commonly detected method of cultivating cannabis is through the use of hydroponics (or other enhanced indoor cultivation methods), usually detected within residential premises.
In 2004-2005, cannabis remained widely available throughout Australia. A survey of injecting drug users in Australia described the availability of cannabis as stable and considered cannabis as very easy or easy to obtain in all jurisdictions, with hydroponic cannabis dominating the market. Clearly, a bill that tightens the prosecution of hydroponically grown cannabis is important, and is simply not a cosmetic change in legislation. Rather the legislation is aimed at the very heart of cannabis production, which takes place on a domestic level. I commend the Government for its initiative in refining the legislation. To make the biggest dint in cannabis production we must focus our efforts on dealing with cottage industry cannabis growers as much as we focus on breaking the back of larger and more sophisticated cartels that may operate out of large-scale venues. It is of interest to note that cannabis drug production through hydroponics and trade is perhaps qualitatively different from other illicit drugs. Compared with naturally grown cannabis, hydroponic cultivation increases yields, shortens the time taken to produce mature plants, and allows for full year-round production. The rise of hydroponic and other enhanced indoor cultivated cannabis has revealed a problem with assessing the scale of cannabis cultivation for prosecution purposes simply by the number of plants. Currently the prosecution of cannabis production, under the current Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, is based on whether the total number of plants that are found in a drug dealer’s possession falls below thresholds of 5, 50, 250 and 1,000 plants.
But what is not considered is the number of flowering tops or bracts, called ‘heads’, in every plant, which is a good indication of the overall productivity of a crop. Hydroponic cannabis is selectively bred to contain more ‘heads’ and less leaf than does naturally occurring cannabis. Given that hydroponic cultivated cannabis also grows faster in optimal conditions, the yields over time can be five to seven times that of the traditional outdoor growth. One should also note that different crops are capable of producing huge variations in the levels of the active chemical tetrahydrocannabinol [THC]. According to the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, the levels of THC can vary in potency from 1 per cent potency up to 20 per cent. Hydroponic methods aim to create the most productive and potent cannabis plants that are found at the top end of this scale. It is clear that 20 plants grown naturally are not equivalent to 20 plants grown hydroponically. The popularity of hydroponic cannabis among drug users due to its perceived potency has meant that the trade has become increasingly lucrative, with street values that can reach double that of naturally grown alternatives.
The production of hydroponic cannabis can be quite intensive and usually requires high supplies of electricity to maintain powerful heat-producing lights. The annual report into illicit drugs produced by the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence in 2000-01 highlighted the increased problem of electricity theft by growers who steal electricity from nearby sources with specialised equipment to avoid detection by law enforcement authorities. I am pleased that the Government has acknowledged this problem of drug producers using devious methods to avoid detection by increasing the significant penalties under the Electricity Supply Act 1995. The bill amends this Act to increase maximum penalties associated with electricity use for hydroponic cultivation of drugs. I will not exhaustively detail the exact nature of all of the amendments made by the bill to the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act.
However it suffices to say that the amendments made by the bill include the insertion of a definition of cultivation by enhanced indoor means—the two leading methods of enhanced indoor cannabis cultivation, hydroponics and aeroponics, are covered by the definition; replacing the definition of prohibited plant to include cannabis plant cultivated by enhanced indoor means; replacing the definition of drug premises and creating new offences of cultivating prohibited plants by enhanced indoor means in quantities greater than small quantities but less than commercial quantities; and cultivating prohibited plants by enhanced indoor means in the presence of children. Maximum penalties for these new offences will be 20 per cent higher than for existing offences. Speakers in this debate who make the point that this bill is simply another way of the Government collecting revenue by increased penalties should re-examine the bill. A 20 per cent increase in penalties is not very significant over a period of years.
There are specific risks to children who are exposed to the hydroponic process such as fire, electrocution, extreme heat, dangerous chemicals, insecticides and fumes as well as toxic gases and airborne bacteria. However, I must draw attention to the comments made by the Legislation Review Committee in relation to the onus of proof provided in proposed section 23A. This is a matter that the Government should examine closely. Proposed section 23A places the onus of proof regarding whether a child was endangered, which is the essence of the offence, on the defendant. The committee has stated:
13. The Committee notes that reversing the onus of proof is inconsistent with the presumption of innocence, which is a fundamental human right.14. The Committee notes that while reversing the onus of proof may be appropriate in certain circumstances, proposed s 23A appears to fall outside the Commonwealth guidelines for such provisions …
16. The Committee refers to Parliament the question whether proposed section 23A trespasses unduly on the right to the presumption of innocence by reversing the onus of proof.
I await the Minister’s reply to hear what the Government says in response to those comments. Lastly I make the point that South Australia, Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory already have legislation that distinguishes between cannabis that is grown hydroponically and conventional methods. This legislation will join the host of other State legislation dealing with this issue. The Christian Democratic Party commends the bill to the House.
