Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Amendment (Drug Detection Dogs) Bill 2026 - Second Reading Speech
I am proud to introduce the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Amendment (Drug Detection Dogs) Bill 2026 as the drug law reform and harm reduction spokesperson for The Greens and also as the party's spokesperson on music and the night-time economy.
The bill will chart us on a different course to that chosen by lawmakers in this place when the Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) Bill 2001 was passed by both Houses in December 2001. Since then drug dog operations have become a routine feature of public life in New South Wales. Every weekend police deploy drug dogs at train stations, licensed venues, festivals and entertainment precincts. In recent months large-scale police operations involving drug dogs have targeted venues on Oxford Street, with particular concern expressed by the LGBTQIA+ community about overpolicing of their queer spaces.
What was originally presented as a tool to target drug dealers has become a system that subjects people to searches and police scrutiny simply for catching a train or enjoying a day or night out at a music festival or a dance party. The powers have contributed to a culture where young people are routinely treated as suspects, despite overwhelming evidence that drug dog operations are not achieving their stated purpose.
The routine use of drug detection dogs in nightlife precincts, bars, clubs and transport hubs is not standard practice in comparable international cities. People visiting Sydney are often shocked to discover that they can be searched, detained and interrogated by police and drug dogs simply for entering a nightclub or catching a train. Cities that compete with Sydney as global destinations for tourism, nightlife, culture and major events do not routinely subject patrons to this type of policing. At a time when this Government likes to boast about investing millions in revitalising nightlife and promoting Sydney as a global city, New South Wales continues to deploy a policing model that is increasingly viewed as heavy-handed, ineffective and inconsistent with contemporary approaches to public health, community safety and drug harm reduction. So how did we get here? The origins of drug detection dogs in New South Wales are inseparable from one of the most turbulent periods in the State's policing history: the 1990s and the era of the Wood royal commission.
In a nutshell, for those too young to understand and those who would prefer to forget, the Wood royal commission uncovered systemic corruption in the NSW Police Force and found that it had facilitated and protected drug trafficking. Senior officers were implicated, public confidence collapsed and the commission ultimately concluded that serious reform was required. At exactly the same time, heroin overdoses were rising sharply across Sydney and public concern about drugs was reaching fever pitch. Cabramatta was labelled "Australia's heroin capital", and the Government was under pressure to be seen to be acting. It is important to note that neither the Wood royal commission nor the landmark 1999 New South Wales Drug Summit proposed the widespread use of drug detection dogs as a street-level policing strategy. The 1999 Drug Summit produced 172 recommendations and focused heavily on harm minimisation, diversion and treatment, not drug dogs or heavy-handed policing.
Drug dogs emerged from the race between the major parties to appear as the toughest on law and order, which sounds familiar. A 2000 parliamentary inquiry into policing and drug crime in Cabramatta resulted in the then Labor Premier Bob Carr publicly criticising police for taking their eye off the ball on illicit drugs. In March 2001 Carr announced a package of measures to tackle drugs and crime in Cabramatta that included the deployment of a new team of drug detection dogs. Premier Carr explicitly noted that the dogs had been trialled during the Sydney Olympic Games and were now available for wider use. Criminology research describes this moment as the point at which drug dogs became politically attractive. They arrived in an atmosphere of intense media attention, community fears about drugs, anxiety about police integrity and pressure on governments to appear tough on crime. Once introduced, their use expanded rapidly.
By 2001, 14 specially trained detection dogs commenced operational duties across New South Wales. They were deployed not only in Cabramatta but also throughout Sydney's night-life precincts, clubs, licensed premises, railway stations and public places. Crucially, police were conducting these operations despite there being no legislation specifically authorising where and how drug detection dogs could be used. One of the most high-profile examples occurred in October 2001. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that 200 police converged on two Oxford Street clubs, DCM and NV, and 100 other officers raided EP1 and Zen clubs in Kings Cross and Embassy in Double Bay. More than 1,000 nightclub patrons were searched by police. Police closed roads surrounding the clubs before sealing off the entrances, shutting off the music and turning on the lights.
Patrons were allowed to leave in groups of four and five after being examined by a specially trained sniffer dog outside the front door. Those who drew the attention of the sniffer dogs were searched, and some were taken away in handcuffs. Surprise, surprise—the media was tipped off to cover every second of this, and the television cameras did not stop rolling. All five clubs were closed by police for 72 hours, and police warned of further raids, saying that other nightclubs faced shutdowns if they did not get rid of drug dealers and users. Extraordinarily, City East Region Commander Dick Adams told the media that he would be applying to the Licensing Court to close four of the clubs permanently, and they closed the four clubs for six months. I wonder whether the police were trying to shift attention away from the behaviour exposed by the Wood royal commission.
The Council for Civil Liberties, ACON and Redfern Legal Centre argued that those operations constituted unlawful searches, were an invasion of privacy and targeted drug users rather than serious traffickers. Their concerns were quickly validated in court. A magistrate later ruled that a search of a Sydney man while standing in a queue to get into a nightclub on Oxford Street was unlawful because the dog was "sniffing" and "nudging", and the police lacked reasonable suspicion. The charges were ultimately withdrawn. A similar case followed in Byron Bay when a man was searched after a dog approached him at a cafe. The court found that the conduct of the drug detection dog had not been lawfully justified and therefore the evidence was improperly obtained. The police lobbied on this issue.
On his first official day as police Minister in the Carr Labor Government, Michael Costa held a press conference at the Auburn Police Station, promising to make the use of drug detection dogs in random searches lawful if legislation proved to be flawed. He kept his word. On 6 December 2001 the Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) Bill was introduced. Costa openly stated that the purpose of the legislation was to put beyond doubt the ability of police to use drug detection dogs and expand police search powers. In his second reading speech he said:
The bill is drafted to recognise the need for police to use drug detection dogs to assist in identifying persons involved in the illicit drug trade and particularly those supplying prohibited drugs.
…
The bill is aimed primarily at detecting and prosecuting persons committing offences relating to the supply of prohibited drugs or plants.
The legislation was rushed through Parliament just weeks after the nightclub raids and just months after the legal challenges had exposed weaknesses in the police position. The bill was also introduced shortly after a by‑election in Auburn where crime featured as a major political issue, with the government and opposition of the day competing to be seen as the toughest on the issue before the election. In other words, the widespread use of drug detection dogs in New South Wales emerged from a period when public confidence in police had been shattered by revelations of corruption, when governments were under pressure to prove they were winning the war on drugs, and when highly visible policing operations created powerful media images. Drug dogs offered governments something that was politically valuable: a highly visible demonstration that action was being taken.
Some 25 years later, we know how that experiment turned out. We know that most people searched after a drug dog indication are not found with drugs. We know that drug dogs have not eliminated drug markets; in fact, they have not put a dent in them and drug use has increased. We know that they have not stopped drug use. What they have done is normalise suspicionless searches and expand police powers at the expense of civil liberties. Following are some of the messages I have received from people about their experiences going out in Sydney, and in support of this legislation:
The club went into chaos, everyone started pushing and moving, everyone turned away from the DJ, the club turned into a panic, the vibes gone. The outcome? The same people go to the club and continue using drugs the following week. The practice doesn't, and has NEVER worked. This isn't a win for the police, it's a waste of resources. A result that doesn't even cause a dent into the drug usage in the slightest. To think about the 10+ officers funded by tax payers to come into our spaces to invoke fear. What are they measuring success against?
Another reads:
We visited Palms in March and a group of police walked in. We were shocked - this would never happen in Melbourne and it was so intimidating they walked through the crowds, on the dancefloor and everything. Not ok.
Another wrote:
I was a victim … a few weeks back. Have to attend court next month. Once it's over I'm leaving the country to travel and enjoy night life. I feel so scared in my home city. So humiliating what happened to me in front of everyone I know.
And another:
I hate going out in Sydney. Not just to clubs but to events as well. Feels like we're doing something wrong when we just wanna go out and dance to music. It's been happening for longer than I've been going to Sydney to work in the clubs. I'd much rather be anywhere else whenever I see @nswpolice because it's never a fun time the way they treat patrons in clubs.
Finally:
Part of the reason I moved away from Australia. I was assaulted on Oxford Street a couple of weeks prior to world pride in 2023. I was subsequently fined for defending myself, while my assailants who ran didn't receive any penalty or repercussions for their involvement.
One of the most compelling arguments for reform, though, comes not from politicians, campaigners or civil liberties advocates, but from those charged with investigating the tragic consequences of current drug policy settings. Following the deaths of six young people at New South Wales music festivals in the summer of 2018‑19, Deputy State Coroner Harriet Grahame conducted a landmark inquiry into the circumstances surrounding those deaths. The inquest examined the role of law enforcement, harm reduction measures, festival operations, drug education and public health responses. The findings should have been a turning point in the debate about drug detection dogs.
At each of the festivals examined by the inquest, patrons were met by a highly visible police presence, including drug detection dogs stationed at entry points. Some patrons were subsequently stripsearched. Yet despite this intensive policing response, the Deputy State Coroner found that drugs continued to enter the events and that young people continued to consume them. Indeed, the inquest heard evidence that the presence of police and drug detection dogs may actually increase risk. The coroner noted that visible policing operations can be intimidating and can lead patrons to engage in panic consumption or dangerous "pre‑loading" before entering a venue.
I note that Alexandra Ross‑King did that and unfortunately died from an MDMA overdose. Her mother, Jen Ross‑King, has been a wonderful advocate for drug law reform ever since, calling for pill testing and the removal of sniffer dogs at music festivals. Rather than reducing harm, drug dog detection practices can increase the likelihood of overdose, serious illness and death. The Coroner observed:
It is clear from the evidence before this inquest that despite police dog operations it remained relatively easy for some of these patrons to purchase drugs at the venue. It may be that drug dog and search operations are not significantly reducing the ability of young people to source drugs inside, and yet are having a harmful effect on drug use patterns and practices.
The Coroner noted that many major European music festivals operate with little or no visible police presence and certainly without the deployment of drug detection dogs. Research before the inquest showed that Australia has one of the highest rates of policing of people who use drugs, including one of the highest rates of drug dog deployment anywhere in the world. Detective Superintendent Smith of ACT Policing told the inquiry that Australian Capital Territory police do not use drug detection dogs before or during music festivals as part of their overall policing strategy. He stated that police had recognised potentially harmful consequences associated with the use of dogs, including people consuming drugs upon seeing a dog, in order to avoid detection.
Mick Palmer, AO, APM, former Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, told the inquest that even heavy police deployments and widespread use of drug dogs at festivals had not reduced drug use, saying that "at the end of the day young people will do what young people do". He questioned the tendency to measure success by the number of arrests and seizures, pointing out that most detections involve possession rather than supply. He said the policy goal must be reducing harm and preventing deaths, not increasing arrest statistics. These concerns were not new in 2019. More than a decade earlier the NSW Ombudsman reached many of the same conclusions. In its statutory review of the original drug dog legislation, the Ombudsman found that despite the best efforts of police, drug detection dogs had proven to be an ineffective tool for detecting drug dealers.
Overwhelmingly, dog operations resulted either in searches where no drugs were found or in the detection of mostly young people carrying very small quantities of drugs for personal use. During the review period, drug detection dogs made more than 10,000 indications, yet only 141 indications led to the discovery of what the law regards as a "deemed supply" quantity of drugs. Even more remarkably, only 19 people were ultimately successfully prosecuted for supply offences, and those cases typically involved small‑scale social supply among friends rather than organised commercial dealing. That is 19 people out of 10,000.
The Ombudsman also documented reports that drug users were changing their behaviour to avoid detection, including consuming larger amounts at once, taking drugs before driving to venues, purchasing drugs from unknown sources inside venues and switching to substances they believed were less likely to be detected, such as GHB, which is a very dangerous drug if used incorrectly. These are precisely the consequences that the coronial inquest later identified as leading to the loss of lives. The police and the government were warned. The Ombudsman found little or no evidence that drug dog operations deter drug use, reduce drug‑related crime or improve public safety. It concluded that serious concerns about cost effectiveness were well founded, and questioned whether the legislation should be retained at all.
We have a remarkable situation. The independent Ombudsman warned almost 20 years ago that drug detection dogs were ineffective, costly and potentially counterproductive. The Deputy State Coroner examining the deaths of six young Australians heard evidence that their use may be actively increasing risk. Senior police officers and former police commissioners have questioned their value. Yet the powers remain. The evidence is clear. If our goal was to reduce harm, prevent death and target serious drug supply, after 25 years, is it not time to acknowledge that drug detection dogs have failed to deliver on the promises made when these extraordinary powers were first introduced?
I turn now to the bill. This bill is a straightforward but significant reform. Its purpose is to remove the statutory framework that authorises the use of drug detection dogs in New South Wales. The centrepiece of the bill is the repeal of part 11, division 2 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act—or LEPRA—2002. That division contains the provisions that authorise police to use drug detection dogs for "general drug detection", including at licensed premises, festivals, entertainment venues, public transport locations and other authorised places. Removing division 2 abolishes the legislative basis for these operations. Specifically the bill repeals the provisions that authorise the use of drug detection dogs for general drug detection, allow police to conduct drug dog operations in authorised places, allow police to obtain warrants for drug dog operations in public places, and provide supporting powers associated with those operations. These amendments ensure that provisions relating to warrant applications, warrant duration and administrative processes continue to operate correctly once the drug dog regime has been removed.
The Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Regulation 2016 will be amended to remove forms, record‑keeping requirements and warrant procedures that relate specifically to drug detection dog operations. The Restricted Premises Act 1943 and Tattoo Industry Act 2012 are amended to remove references to drug detection dogs while preserving police powers to use dogs for firearms and explosives detection. The bill does not affect police powers relating to the detection of firearms, explosives or other legitimate security purposes. The bill does not remove ordinary police search powers. The bill removes the extraordinary power to deploy drug detection dogs against members of the public who are not otherwise suspected of any wrongdoing. In practical terms, if passed, the bill will end the routine deployment of drug detection dogs at train stations, nightlife precincts, pubs, clubs, music festivals and other public settings where thousands of ordinary people are currently subjected to "suspicionless" drug detection searches. It restores the position that police should rely on evidence, intelligence and reasonable suspicion, rather than mass screening of the public with drug detection dogs.
Those opposing the bill‑—the major parties and the police—will say, "But drugs are illegal. We cannot have a free‑for‑all." Let us look at the overall effectiveness of drug dog operations, because would we not think that stronger police operations and general drug detection powers with the use of drug detection dogs mean that the New South Wales police could boast that they have the drug situation under control? The data states otherwise. In 2022-23, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare found that 17.5 per cent of New South Wales residents aged 14 and over—which is more than one in six—reported using an illicit drug in the previous 12 months compared to 15.9 per cent in 2019. That percentage has gone up. In 2001, cocaine use across the country was 1.3 per cent. In 2022-23 across the country it was 4.5 per cent, but it was 5 per cent in New South Wales, while lifetime cocaine use increased from 4.4 per cent in 2001 to 13.5 per cent in 2022-23.
After decades of policing and criminal penalties, one in six people still reports recent illicit drug use and one in 20 reports recent cocaine use. As for government spending on the illicit drug problem, 64.3 per cent is the share of Australia's illicit drug policy expenditure devoted to enforcement, and just 1.6 per cent was devoted to harm reduction. This is the number one textbook example of public policy failure. Drug dogs were sold to members of Parliament as a way of catching drug dealers. Drug use has gone up, billions and billions of dollars have been spent, and more drugs are available now than ever before. Twenty-five years later, New South Wales has ended up with police and sniffer dogs routinely entering pubs, clubs and train stations to search ordinary people. That is not how most comparable cities approach drug policy. People literally are leaving Sydney because of this issue. People visit Sydney and go back to their friends in other countries—New York, London, Paris—and say, "Oh my God, don't go to Sydney. The drug dog situation is absolutely out of control."
Other jurisdictions increasingly focus police resources on organised drug supply and treat personal drug use as a health issue. New South Wales has done the opposite. The result is a policing regime that is out of step with modern evidence and is increasingly damaging Sydney's nightlife, cultural life and international reputation. Moreover, it is shutting down businesses and venues. This bill finally brings that failed experiment to an end. I thank those who have not stopped bringing attention to the abusive police powers in the drug detection dog regime. The Greens have opposed the introduction of drug detection dogs right from the beginning, in 2001. The Greens tried to move a disallowance of the drug detection dog regulation. My former Greens colleague in this place, and indeed former boss, Ms Lee Rhiannon moved to disallow the regulation when it was first brought in by the Carr Labor Government. Another former colleague of mine, Mr David Shoebridge, who is now our Federal Greens leader, launched Sniff Off, which has proven to be an incredibly popular platform for people to share their experiences, their frustration and, frankly, their anger regarding the use of sniffer dogs in New South Wales, while 11 years ago The Greens member for Newtown in the other place, Ms Jenny Leong, introduced a bill to repeal drug detection dogs.
I acknowledge the Redfern Legal Centre, Harm Reduction Australia, the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Unharm, the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, the good folk at the UNSW's Drug Policy Modelling Program at the Social Policy Research Centre, particularly Professor Alison Ritter, and many others who have provided incredible evidence and data over many years on this issue and who continue to advocate for commonsense reform—even some from the Government benches. In July 2004 the Hon. Cameron Murphy was at the NSW Council of Civil Liberties when he said this:
Sniffer dogs are getting it wrong in three out of five searches—leading to the public humiliation of innocent people who are forced by police to strip down to their underwear.
If speed cameras were wrong three out of five times they would be scrapped, yet these dogs are, and the police are continuing to use them.
He also said, "Police are constantly complaining about a shortage of resources. When they do, the public should be asking why are they wasting millions of dollars on useless sniffer dogs instead of using the money to investigate serious crime? These dogs are nothing more than a very expensive public relations stunt—one that is at the expense of fighting serious crime and targeting drug dealers. The police must immediately phase these dogs out of operation and direct the wasted resources to programs that target drug dealers and serious crime." I could not have put it better.
I look forward to common sense prevailing and to members supporting this bill. In fact, I look forward to the Hon. Cameron Murphy perhaps choosing this issue to sit with The Greens on the crossbench when this legislation comes to a vote. After 25 years, it is time to acknowledge that the experiment of drug detection dogs in our clubs and pubs and at our train stations and music festivals has failed. It is time to stop wasting police resources, stop damaging Sydney's reputation and stop harassing people who go to nightclubs, dance parties and music festivals. It is time to save our nightlife. It is time to ditch the dogs.