Page 998 - Week 03 - Thursday, 10 March 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
(h) the numerous ACT Government policies and programs that focus on harm minimisation, including:
(i) the Draft Alcohol Tobacco and Drug Strategy 2016-2020;
(ii) possession offences, including Simple Cannabis Offence Notices;
(iii) changes to the Criminal Code (Controlled Drugs) Legislation Amendment Regulation 2014 (No 1);
(iv) the Naloxone program;
(v) the Needle and Syringe program;
(vi) the success of the ACT Policing Drug Diversion programs;
(vii) the ACT Justice Reinvestment Strategy; and
(viii) the Justice Reform program; and
(2) calls on the ACT Government to:
(a) continue to focus its drug policies to prioritise treatment and harm minimisation and emphasise a policy approach that treats personal illicit drug use as a health issue, rather than a criminal issue; and
(b) continue to use an evidence-based approach, using the three pillars of harm minimisation (demand, supply and harm reduction) to deliver policy that provides positive outcomes for the Canberra community.”.
MR HANSON (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (4.54): Turning firstly to the comments of the Attorney-General, I was glad to hear much of what he said. I welcome the fact that the majority of this government, at least, has the position that he has indicated. A couple of the points he made were pertinent—the flow-on effect of drug use, and that these drugs that we are talking about are not harmless. He talked about roadside drug testing. It is somewhat ironic that Mr Corbell, who is part of a government that previously described that legislation as “redneck” is now supporting it, and Mr Rattenbury, who previously supported my legislation in 2010 for roadside drug testing, now seems to want greater liberalisation. Anyway, that is a bit historical.
The other point that needs to be made, and it was alluded to in the three elements that Mr Corbell talked about—demand, supply and harm reduction—is that of deterrence. If you speak to people on the front line of organisations who are dealing with the drug affected and the homeless, their efforts to get those individuals onto rehab programs and away from these insidious substances are often aided by the fact that there are penalties involved, and without the deterrence of action through the court system and the police, the ability for those organisations to get people onto the programs that they need to be on, because of the nature of those sorts of highly addictive drugs, is more difficult.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video