Page 2291 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 3 August 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
raised and I have made minor amendments to the supplementary explanatory statement that I circulated on Monday—actually, it may have been yesterday.
The committee has raised concerns about the proposal to include the list and amounts of drugs that would be eligible for a simple drug offence notice and a maximum penalty of one penalty unit in regulation rather than in the act. However, it is common for lists of this nature to appear in regulations rather than in primary legislation. For example, the Criminal Code Regulation 2005 sets out quantities of controlled drugs relevant to serious drug offences.
I also note that the list of drugs is limited at this time, reflecting the level of evidence available on the harms associated with each drug, but it does reflect the drugs that are most commonly seized. It may be appropriate in the future to add further drugs to the list as further evidence becomes available, in line with the government’s harm minimisation and health-based approach to illicit drug use. Including the list of drugs in regulation will facilitate any necessary changes, while still providing an appropriate level of oversight, as regulations are subject to disallowance or amendment by the Assembly.
I note that the version of the amendments and supplementary explanatory statement considered by the committee did not include details relating to the list of drugs. The revised supplementary explanatory statement for the amendments provides a detailed explanation of the process for determining the drugs and amounts. I have included some further text in response to the committee’s concerns, noting that similar factors would be relevant to any consideration of changes to the list in the future and adding further detail on the reasoning for including the list of drugs in regulation.
This bill is a big step forward for drug law reform both in Canberra and in Australia more generally. I know that this does not go as far as some would like. However, it reflects the complicated interplay between the commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 and the ACT’s Drugs of Dependence Act 1989, and our requirement to ensure that the community has confidence that we are not decriminalising wholesale drug dealing, and drug users can have confidence that they will not be exposed to far more serious punishment through commonwealth laws.
The government’s position has required careful consideration and engagement with ACT Policing to ensure that our model, based on science and evidence, accurately captures what a heavy user would self-report over five sessions days. This is based on the self-reported survey data from ACT drug users themselves, prepared in the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre drug trends report.
The ACT government has designed our amendments with the close engagement of ACT Policing because, ultimately, they will enforce these laws. The government has taken the time to ensure that we did not take the short-term political approach; instead we designed a reform that is sustainable and achieves the outcomes that Mr Pettersson set out to achieve.
Ignoring the presence and reality of commonwealth law—as some are proposing, Mr Davis—could expose people with drug dependence to far more serious consequences—consequences that could potentially be eight years in prison and/or
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video