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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Tuesday, 17 August 2004) . . Page.. 3698 ..

is useful, but the bill needs to be partnered by effective preventative programs and, as far as I can see, it is not. I call upon the government to ramp up its preventative programs to make sure that this bill which is supposedly aimed at looking after the broader interests of the community will be able to do that effectively.

MRS CROSS (12.18): Mr Speaker, I am very pleased that the government has presented the Criminal Code (Serious Drug Offences) Amendment Bill 2004 that we are debating today. It represents a significant step in the curtailing of organised drug trafficking in the ACT by outlining more extensively and clearly illegal drug-related activities than are to be found in the Drugs of Dependence Act 1991.

I am very concerned about the deleterious effects that prohibited drugs have on our society and the individuals within it. Drugs destroy lives and families, take away children’s innocence, and are commonly associated with acts of criminality beyond activities related to drugs.

To my mind, the purpose of this piece of legislation is twofold. First, the bill attempts to define clearly the two distinct purposes of two different though related pieces of legislation, originally dealt with in one. That is most important for the efficient attainment of each objective. Secondly, the bill attempts to provide a simple and straightforward approach to combat the most serious offences involving illicit drugs—supply, manufacture, cultivation, and offences involving children.

It is important in our battle against drugs that we distinguish between the regulation and distribution of illicit drugs and illegal recreational ones. In order to achieve these two objectives, we need two instruments. This is a matter of clearly defining what are, in essence, separate objectives, allowing a greater degree of consistency within the legislation.

Such a need is most apparent, as pointed out by the Chief Minister in his presentation speech, when considering the seemingly contradictory section 162 (3) in the Drugs of Dependence Act proscribing more lenient penalties for manufacturing an arbitrary amount of amphetamines compared with cultivating a commercial crop of cannabis. Such an inconsistency arises from the pursuit of two different but not unrelated objectives by the one act. The addition of chapter 6 to the criminal code is an attempt to remove these inconsistencies.

However, the primary objective of the bill remains the circumvention of drug-related activities that are organised and undertaken largely for profit. That can be done effectively only by the promulgation of custom-built trafficking legislation. This point was recognised a quarter of century ago, in 1980, by the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs, headed by Mr Justice Williams.

Drugs have been associated with criminality, violence, intimidation, the corruption of our law enforcement agencies, and the destruction of families and individuals. Illicit drugs cause considerable harm to society; that is undeniable. I am sure that everyone here was absolutely astounded and appalled to see the recent footage of schoolchildren openly smoking cannabis on school grounds, of all places, as though it were part of everyday culture. I am pleased to see that appropriate measures have been taken within this bill to keep drugs away from children. Children are the future, and we must work

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