Page 2294 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 3 August 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
passed—after her daughter had been killed by a drug-affected driver. I thank Tom and, before him, Alison, who are a reminder to me, and should be a reminder to all of us, that the laws we make in this place have real-world consequences.
The whole sad saga of this bill has a history; it is one where the government broke a commitment that it made before the election. I will go to that, because on the eve of the 2020 election, as Minister Rachel Stephen-Smith indicated, there was a motion brought forward by Mr Pettersson that called on the government “to investigate the feasibility of a simple offence notice for other drugs of dependence, to ascertain the legal, social and health impacts”. The motion also called on the government to: “report to the Assembly no later than November 2021 on progress”.
In good faith we agreed to that, because it called for an investigation into these matters and the tabling of a report on that investigation by November 2021. We engaged in that debate in good faith. Indeed I did say that it was worth looking at. But I made the point that we were open to looking at these issues, and particularly when it came, perhaps, to small amounts of MDMA at a festival. I said, “Let’s look at that.”
I have been selectively quoted—you would not be surprised to hear this, Mr Deputy Speaker—by Minister Stephen-Smith, because I also made it clear in that debate that the Canberra Liberals would never support going to a simple offence notice for certain drugs like meth and heroin, and that is what is before us today.
Before the election we were promised an investigation by the government. That is what they took to the election. So that promise was broken. The investigation never happened. In fact what happened was that, at the first sitting after the Christmas break, Mr Pettersson came in with this bill—a bill that ignored any sort of investigation. I do not suppose any investigation even started. He came straight in here with a bill to decriminalise heroin and meth. The good people of the ACT, including me, thought that some sort of investigation would occur, to look at this substantively and in a genuine way. Instead we got Mr Pettersson’s bill, which we have before us today, that decriminalises heroin and meth.
The Canberra Liberals referred the bill to a select committee, and that inquiry was conducted. Of course, it was one-sided. There is a dissenting report that Mr Cain, who chaired the committee, put forward. I encourage members to look at that. Following the inquiry, amendments have been put forward by Ms Stephen-Smith, and there are competing amendments that have just been circulated by Mr Davis. We are meant to support what is probably the most flawed process in terms of bill-making that I have seen in this place. We were deceived about an investigation. Now, behind the scenes, there is squabbling and grandstanding between Mr Pettersson and Mr Davis.
The government amendments support the position of decriminalising drugs but do not say what those quantities are. What will the quantities be? They can be set by the minister. They will not be determined in this place; they will be determined by the minister alone. The Assembly will be asked to pass a bill to decriminalise drugs without having the quantities attached.
The drugs to be included and the amounts go to the very heart of this legislation. It has been noted by the scrutiny committee—and the minister tried to defend her
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video