Page 3411 - Week 10 - Thursday, 20 October 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
court. Only very recently, during the last Assembly, most users of cannabis have been moved out of this framework and towards legal possession.
It makes sense to me that this SCON framework, which worked reasonably well as a decriminalisation framework, would be a good basis for further reform. The ACT government’s proposed amendments make further changes to the current SCON scheme than my bill does alone, and I will flag in advance that I am in full support of all of the government’s amendments. They are sensible and they are measured. Along with proposing minor changes to the quantities and substances included in the scheme, they propose legislating that an arresting officer have the choice to issue a fine or a drug diversion for the proposed substances and quantities. This is sensible and in line with most Canberrans’ views on the matter.
This is not a new approach, however. This is the current protocol for the simple cannabis offence notice under internal ACT Police guidelines. Codifying diversion in statute law, with equal footing to an offence notice, is, however, an important step forward. I believe this bill, along with the government’s amendments, is the logical next step in the broader drug harm minimisation strategy that is already underway in the ACT.
As former Victorian Police Commissioner Ken Lay has stated, “You cannot arrest your way out of this problem.” He is right; we cannot. Because if we did arrest everyone who used illicit recreational drugs, we would have an even bigger problem. We would be locking up countless, otherwise-law-abiding Canberrans. The 2019 National Drug Strategy household survey shows how large this problem would be. There are many complex reasons why people choose to consume drugs, but one thing is clear: people use drugs. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare survey found that 43 per cent of Australians have used illicit recreational drugs in their lifetimes. More specifically to this bill, 11.2 per cent have used ecstasy; nine per cent have used cocaine; 6.3 per cent have used meth or an amphetamine.
These people are all criminals under our current laws. Either by luck or other priorities of law enforcement, most Canberrans who use drugs never get caught. As former commissioner of the Australian Federal Police Mick Palmer says, the current prohibitionist approach to drugs is badly broken. He is spot on. Clearly, prohibition is not working as its advocates say it does, if 43 per cent of us are criminals who were, mostly, lucky enough not to get caught.
I have witnessed two main arguments from conservative opponents to this bill. The first is that drug possession should remain a criminal offence and it should be enforced rigorously. The second is that drug possession should remain a criminal offence, but it should not really be enforced. To those in the first category, I implore you to consider what you would do if you found a small quantity of drugs in the bedroom of your young adult child. Would you call the police on your child? Why not? I really want members to consider what they would do.
At its most simple, the proposition in my bill is that law enforcement should respond to the possession of drugs for personal use in the same way that a caring and well-intentioned parent would. A parent would confiscate the drugs, talk to their child about the dangers of their drug use, issue a non-life-altering punishment, and get their
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video