Page 3481 - Week 10 - Thursday, 20 October 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
resulted in no increase in cannabis use in the ACT. They also noted, in their preliminary findings, that there was a four-times increase in the number of people presenting for help with cannabis dependence. Notwithstanding the long list of submissions which tabled evidence that would indicate a similar conclusion in the case of the decriminalisation of drugs, this case study within the ACT shows the clear effect of treating drug dependence as a health issue.
These amendments are possibly the single most important change we are seeking to make to Mr Pettersson’s bill and one which would genuinely change the culture of stigma and discrimination around drug use, as well as allowing as many people as possible to access health services safely and confidently, including the drug check-in service in the city, which we know has already made an important contribution to reducing harm.
Research has found that the legality is not a central concern in the decision whether or not to take drugs and, therefore, legal condemnation is ineffective at best. We know that drug decriminalisation will enable a health-based response to drug use by reducing the stigmatisation of people who use drugs, ending the fear these people experience in accessing health services.
In the bill proposed, and in the amendments the government has proposed, drug users can still be subject to fines and custodial sentences of personal drug possession. Therefore, while they have been toting it as such, ACT Labor’s policy does not in fact enact the fundamentals of drug decriminalisation.
MS STEPHEN-SMITH (Kurrajong—Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Minister for Families and Community Services and Minister for Health) (5.09): At the beginning, I recognise that Mr Davis’s amendments 1 to 3 do two different things. Amendments 1 and 3 are in relation to the full decriminalisation that he talks about, which reflects the changes that were made to cannabis legislation some time ago. But the approach that Mr Pettersson has proposed in his private member’s bill and that the Labor Party is supporting is consistent with the staged approach to decriminalisation that was in fact taken for cannabis. The simple drug offence notice is modelled on the simple cannabis offence notice which previously existed for adults and young people and still exists for young people.
The other point that I want to make in relation to the penalties that apply under the simple drug offence notice as proposed is that it is a relatively small fine. It can be waived; police have the capacity to issue a caution instead. Where a diversion opportunity is taken, it is not compulsory attendance at a treatment program; it is compulsory attendance at a diversion program. It is a very different thing and, while it provides a clear pathway to treatment, it is a very light-touch approach in terms of that initial response, because there is also a recognition that treatment is most effective and really only effective if it is engaged in on a voluntary basis. I can indicate that the government will be supporting Mr Davis’s amendment later on that changes the way the government was proposing to define the diversion program so that only attendance at the initial assessment session would be required.
Mr Davis’s amendment No 2 is a substantial amendment that would significantly change the definition of small amounts of illicit drugs. This, of course, is absolutely
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video