Page 3491 - Week 10 - Thursday, 20 October 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The next point I would make—and it is a point that came out in the inquiry, and was backed up by the Law Society—is that this is not actually going to make much difference to engagement in the criminal justice system. There is this great lie being perpetrated that because there is a criminal sanction attached to these drugs it means everyone is being locked up. “Do you want people to go to jail for a small amount of drug use or do you want a health outcome?” The reality is that in the vast majority of cases there is no criminal sanction leading to jail.
Now let me take DUI as an example. DUI has a criminal sanction attached to it. Nine months in jail is the maximum penalty. People do not go to jail for DUI. They will for repeat offences, but for a first offence and so on, they will not go to jail. So it is a nonsense argument—and it was exposed in the community inquiry by those on the frontline of providing legal services to the people consuming drugs—to say that this is going to make a difference. It will make a minimal difference to interaction with the criminal justice system. That was very clear.
The next point I make is that the legal framework we have is pretty reasonable. Although those opposite criticise the Canberra Liberals for taking a conservative approach I remind them that all we are advocating for is the laws that currently exist, and will exist for the next 12 months—laws that exist in every other jurisdiction in Australia. So it is not a particularly controversial position. This is the law that those opposite have been operating under. How long has Mr Barr been Chief Minister?—a decade. He has been happy with these laws for a decade.
The problem we have—and it was exposed in the inquiry—is the lack of treatment options. If you put more pressure on our already broken health system, which is already overstretched and under-resourced—this came out very clearly in the inquiry—it will create a problem which will mean that more people who are addicted to drugs are unable to access treatment. That is plainly evident. I have heard people say, “We’ll be able to transfer resources from the criminal justice system to the health sector.” Do you think that is going to happen?—of course it is not. What I would say is that there are no resources to take out of the criminal justice system, because as I said before, these people are not being locked up at the AMC in the first place.
So, it is flawed legislation, it is based on a lie, and it is going to lead to carnage on our roads. It is going to lead to more petty crime by drug users, but also more organised crime—and that is based on the experts who those opposite refuse to quote. It is bad legislation. We do not support it.
I moved an amendment during the debate to say that this should go to an election. I think this is a substantive. The government’s next approach—the staged approach the minister talks about—is to go for legalisation, as it has moved to legalisation of cannabis. That is the staged approach we are heading towards. Those opposite may scoff. We said that this was the plan for cannabis. They all scoffed, but that is what they did. They said it is a staged approach. This is what Mr Davis is advocating for. He said, “I hope this is where it is leading,” and we know about the influence of the Greens on this government, and how profound it is.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video