Page 999 - Week 03 - Thursday, 10 March 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I turn to the original motion. Mr Rattenbury is calling on us to support a declaration. There are some elements of the declaration that I would be able to support, but there are certainly elements in terms of the decriminalisation of illicit drugs and the supporting of illegal activity that I cannot support. Expanding treatment programs, which is also in the declaration, is something that we would all support. But it is not a “one or the other” situation. Just because we do not support the declaration does not mean that we do not necessarily want to see expanded treatment options for people affected by drug use.
In essence, what Mr Rattenbury is asserting and what the declaration asserts is that drug use, particularly amongst young people, is inevitable. I do not think that drug use amongst younger people should be so lightly dismissed as inevitable and that our policies should be simply reversed as a consequence. Illegal drugs are illegal because of the enormous damage that they cause, not just on an individual but more broadly on their families, on communities and on the wider society. An individual who is affected by drugs will often take actions to support their habit that have significant impacts on those around them. That needs to be well understood. That does not mean there is any lack of compassion for those individuals who have found themselves in those circumstances. This is not about lacking the desire to get people off those substances; this is about how to basically prevent that from happening and to manage it should it occur.
Drugs are dangerous, and Mr Rattenbury’s view that we can test drugs and liberalise the process does not recognise the fact that they are dangerous; they should not be marketed as party drugs so that you can just select those drugs that you think are okay at festivals and so on.
The declaration, in essence, by saying, “The policies aren’t working,” implies that we should give up, and that we need to completely change the policies. This is a very complex issue. This is a very difficult area of policy. I note as an aside that rates of speeding in motor vehicles have gone up in the ACT. We will not, as a response to that issue, then say, “Okay, law enforcement of speeding doesn’t seem to be working. Let’s not worry about law enforcement for speeding anymore because clearly it’s not working.” It is the same argument essentially that Mr Rattenbury is putting forward. Yes, it is a difficult issue. Yes, it is challenging. Yes, we will not always get a 100 per cent result, obviously. But to say, “We need a completely changed approach,” is simply a nonsense.
Can we improve the policies that we have? Yes, we can; I am sure we can. Can we have extra rehab and support? Yes, we should. Can we make sure there is more education? Yes. I note that the federal government instigated last year a task force federally to deal with the scourge of ice. I know that we have talked about this issue locally, and I note a number of the policies and initiatives that have been introduced here in the ACT.
But this declaration is suggesting that we move away from illegal drug enforcement. In essence, we would be decriminalising drug use without reference to the impact on the broader society. We cannot just limit this to the effect on the health of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video