Page 3482 - Week 10 - Thursday, 20 October 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
not modelled on the approach that we currently take to cannabis. The cannabis ACT trafficable quantity is 300 grams of dried cannabis. The current decriminalised amount for personal possession for an adult 18 years and over is consistent with the amount that we have defined as a small quantity, which is again consistent with the private member’s bill amount, which is 50 grams. That demonstrates that there is already in existence in ACT law a two-tier approach. It is something that people are very familiar with. There has been this argument that it is going to be confusing for people to have two tiers of levels of possession. But it is exactly what already exists for cannabis, and everyone understands that.
The confusion, I think, lies in the understanding of trafficable quantities and the possession offence. So I want to be really clear with the chamber that trafficable quantities are the quantities above which it is automatically assumed that the only reason that you would have such a large amount of illicit drug in your possession could be for the purposes of trafficking or dealing. Amounts below this, as Minister Rattenbury indicated in his speech, can result in a possession offence or, as Minister Rattenbury pointed out, a trafficking offence. The difference here is that the trafficking offence for those levels below the trafficking quantity needs to be proved through additional evidence of the offence elements of trafficking. But, above that amount, there is an automatic presumption that you can be charged with trafficking for being in possession of that amount.
So it is not based, as others have indicated, on an assessment of what might be in someone’s personal possession for their personal use in a short period of time. By and large, it is hard to justify a position that assumes possession of six grams of methamphetamine, enough for 30 days average use—possibly more, depending on which study you look at—is only for personal use. This position simply does not pass any commonsense test.
It is really important to recognise, in this context, that a key pillar of harm minimisation is supply reduction. A harm minimisation approach has three pillars to it. One pillar is demand reduction. That is educating people, reducing the attractiveness of illicit drugs and supporting people in their decision not to take drugs, and that is the decision that the majority of Canberrans make every day.
A second pillar is harm reduction. That is what we are talking about in terms of reducing engagement with the criminal justice system for people who are drug dependent and reducing the stigma associated with drug use and dependence so that people are more likely to access the treatment and support that they need.
The third pillar is supply reduction. Mr Davis’s amendments are not consistent with that pillar of harm minimisation. I do not believe that the Greens’ amendments support that pillar. We know that, when it comes to illicit drugs, there is an extent to which supply creates demand. Our intention is not to facilitate or encourage supply, trafficking or dealing. Our intention is to reduce harm for those who use drugs. It is clear that our current laws do not prevent this.
Policing have been very clear that these large amounts that the Greens are talking about have much more significant capacity to create loopholes for drug dealers. Additionally, the proposed Greens amendments could actually lead a person to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video