Page 1918 - Week 06 - Thursday, 9 June 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
support to them, and academics that research the impact of criminalisation that the inclusion of fines is highly problematic and risks re-entrenching stigma against drug users and re-criminalising those who cannot pay fines.
We know that those impacted most by criminalisation are not the wealthy coke users partying on a Saturday night after a company’s big win, for whom a fine will be a mild administrative inconvenience. We know instead that fines are discriminatory and are not only disproportionately given to marginalised people but that the accumulation of fines and the consequences for not paying them fall onto those living in poverty. This is a very real and serious form of discrimination that should not be reinforced in these reforms. As Canberra Community Law said in their submission to the inquiry:
People with insecure and inadequate housing are at a greater risk of being brought to the attention of, and targeted by, police and fined or charged with poverty related offences because they live their lives outdoors and in public spaces. Additionally, homeless people cannot carry out their behaviours in the privacy of a home or store items, such as drugs, in a house which increases the chances that a homeless person who uses drugs will be in possession of them. The current provisions of the bill will not divert people who are homeless, at risk of homelessness, or on low incomes, from the criminal justice system. Instead, a penalty of $100 for a simple drug offence is a potentially oppressive form of punishment for people experiencing homelessness in circumstances where it is not uncommon for them to accrue excessive infringement notices, fines and charges for minor poverty related criminal offending.
Specifically for our clients a penalty exacerbates their already difficult living situations by placing them under additional financial strain. Our clients already have limited, or non-existent, incomes. Often their sole source of income, if they have one, is Centrelink benefits. If clients are fined, this compounds the difficulties they face in trying to find affordable accommodation, obtaining stable employment, repaying other debts and dealing with personal and welfare issues.
Given that the intent of this policy and legislative reform is to decriminalise drug use, it is of the utmost importance that the government’s amendments to Mr Pettersson’s bill do not re-inscribe penalties. If the policy intent of this legislation is to prevent people from coming before the criminal justice system, let us make sure that we build legislation that accomplishes this very worthy goal.
On a related matter, attempts to force people into treatment will likely be ineffective and put undue strain on an already overburdened sector. We know that currently the drug treatment sector in the ACT can only meet 50 per cent of the demand from people willing and wanting to access support. Forcing people into treatment gets in the way of the real policy issue here, which is that the alcohol and other drugs sector is seriously underfunded. Therefore, mandatory treatment takes resources and attention away from the real issues.
The ACT Greens went to the last election with a promise to double funding to the alcohol and other drugs sector, and I will continue to campaign to do just that. While we were told throughout the inquiry that decriminalisation is absolutely necessary in spite of funding decisions, it is overwhelmingly clear that this legislative reform will lead to an increase in people seeking support because they are no longer subject to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video