Page 2292 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 3 August 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
$440,000 in fines. I want to take the time to step through why this would be the case. (Extension of time granted.)
The trafficking threshold for some drugs in the ACT Criminal Code Regulation 2005 is significantly higher than the equivalent commonwealth levels in the Commonwealth Criminal Code. I acknowledge that some in the community would like to see the thresholds of this bill set at the ACT trafficking threshold, and that is what Mr Davis is proposing.
I will use methylamphetamine as an example of the real-world implications of this, using the most recent drug trends data from the University of New South Wales. Setting the threshold for methylamphetamine at the ACT trafficking threshold, which is six grams—three times the commonwealth level—equates to between 30 and 60 days of average crystal use, as reported by ACT drug users themselves. It would be somewhere between $2,100 and $3,000 worth of methylamphetamine.
Regarding heroin, it would equate to 17 days and somewhere between $1,600 and $4,000. I should at this point say that ACT Policing would estimate it is far higher than the information reported in The ecstasy and related drugs reporting system and the Illicit drugs reporting system reports from the University of New South Wales.
The ACT government is not supportive of setting limits at multiple weeks of self-reported average use by ACT drug users. To be frank, it is beyond reality that a person dependent on drugs would be carrying $3,000 worth of methylamphetamine or $4,000 worth of heroin. Two other impacts could occur through any change along these lines. It would make our stated goal of supply reduction more difficult by removing the ability to charge drug dealers with possession for levels three times the commonwealth trafficking level. It also does not reflect what the government and the private member’s bill set out to do; that is, divert drug users towards healthcare interventions and away from the justice system.
Counterintuitively, the alternative position advocated by some interstate organisations, and potentially some within this chamber—we know there are—would lead to a situation where ACT Policing could defer to charging individuals under commonwealth law. The government’s position has been to use self-reported data and set our thresholds at what a heavy user would use over three to five sessions. This is sensible, evidence based, supported by ACT Policing and will achieve real decriminalisation for people who have drug dependence issues.
We have also listened to those in the community who have raised the need for continued investment in our alcohol and other drug services. The 2022-23 budget included over $13 million in investment to significantly boost our alcohol and other drug sector, building on the almost $20 million in new investments in the preceding three budgets. This will mean more residential rehabilitation services, new methylamphetamine treatment services and new supports for families and carers of people with drug dependence issues.
In short, this reform is part of the ACT government’s consistent, coherent approach over many years to treat drug dependence as a health issue, and to deliver harm reduction and treatment supports to realise this vision—and to couple those also with
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video