Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 12 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 3680 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

In addition, four new elements have been included: An objects clause; a means of addressing client criminality by way of direction to the Director of Public Prosecutions, in clause 8; a power for the managers of the facility to exclude people from the facility when they need to, clause 9; and a regulation power.

The provisions protecting staff and limiting civil liability claims by clients have been considered extensively after the introduction of the original Bill and I do not propose to address them in detail today. I do wish to make more extensive comments on the issue of client action criminality. This is a complex legal issue and involves a variety of possible responses.

The Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 currently provides that several actions which would be undertaken by clients of the supervised injecting place would be criminal offences. These include possession of drugs of dependence or prohibited substances, self-administration, administering another person, allowing oneself to be administered by another person, and supply and sale. How are we to approach the problem of client criminality to ensure the best and most appropriate operation of the trial?

Firstly, let me stress that in regard to the offences of supply and sale, nothing in the proposed project would affect these crimes. The effects of the Bill and the discussion below are limited to the possession and drug use offences under sections 169 and 171 of the Drugs of Dependence Act.

It is also worth mentioning that the offences of self-administration now exist only in the ACT and New South Wales. Self-administration is a needless offence in the overall prohibition regime but it can actually inhibit people from seeking medical assistance in emergencies. For this reason all other jurisdictions have agreed to repeal these offences and, to date, all but New South Wales and the ACT have done so, except Queensland, of course, which never had those offences.

Members will be aware that a debate has taken place about the relative merits of a legislative approach as against a protocol approach. These are simple names, given the complex alternatives. Briefly, the choice is between making legislative changes to the application of the criminal law or choosing not to do so. If the latter course is chosen, the appropriate alternative is to give statutory directions to the Director of Public Prosecutions, which may be done under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1990. The Government, on legal advice and after extensive consultation with law enforcement agencies, preferred, and still prefers, the former approach.

The Opposition has insisted upon the latter approach. Given the state of the Assembly on this issue, the Government has conceded to this preference. Whilst not our preferred option, we are satisfied that it can be implemented in a successful way. The provision for this approach is set out at clause 8.

The Bill includes a power for the officers in charge of the facility to exclude persons from entering the facility, supported by an offence of failing to comply, clause 9. The capacity to exclude people, whether clients or other people, is an important operational matter which may be necessary to ensure the appropriate operation of the facility. Many

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .