Page 993 - Week 03 - Thursday, 10 March 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I want to mention the issue of decriminalisation, and I note Mr Hanson’s amendment as I make this point. Despite what some tabloids and politicians suggest, decriminalisation is not legalisation. I have noticed the political attacks on progressive drug policy often rely on the deliberate blurring of decriminalisation and legalisation. Let us be clear about what decriminalisation is and what it is not.
Decriminalisation removes criminal penalties for personal use and possession of illicit drugs, either by law or by practice. To clarify, I am not talking about decriminalisation for supply offences such as manufacture or trafficking. As the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre explains, under decriminalisation there is no legal means to obtain drugs and drugs will be confiscated if a person is apprehended. However, a person possessing drugs for personal use would not receive a criminal record, at least in the first instance.
Research also shows that individuals who avoid a criminal record are less likely to drop out of school early, be sacked or to be denied a job. They are less likely to have fights with their parents, family or friends or to be evicted from their accommodation as a result of their police encounter.
Again, there is substantial research evidence showing that drug decriminalisation results in significant benefits to society as well as individuals. It shows that decriminalisation of drug use reduces the cost to society, especially the criminal justice system costs. Decriminalisation does not increase drug use. It does not increase other crime. And none of this is speculative. Portugal is one of many jurisdictions that provides an example of decriminalising drugs.
When in 2001 Portugal decided to treat illicit drug use as a health issue rather than a criminal one, it decriminalised the use and possession of all illicit drugs. At the same time, it expanded investment in drug treatment, harm reduction and social reintegration. The results in that country 15 years later have been very positive. It has a reduced burden on the criminal justice system, reductions in drug related HIV and AIDS, reductions in drug-related deaths, and lower social costs of responding to drugs. Most importantly, drug use in Portugal did not go up; it went down.
There will be more to say in this debate today, but I ask members to think about this issue carefully, to not take the kneejerk response but to think carefully about what is at stake here. I commend my motion to the Assembly.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Capital Metro, Minister for Health, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for the Environment and Climate Change) (4.40): I would like to thank Mr Rattenbury for raising this matter in the Assembly this afternoon. This afternoon I would like to emphasise what the government is focusing on and to provide examples of how we place great emphasis on harm minimisation, including investing in quality drug treatment and support services and how this is done in a collaborative manner by a number of directorates, health services including those provided in the community sector, illicit drug users, their families and friends.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video