Page 416 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 19 February 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
becoming a bikie mecca”, from the Daily Telegraph; “Front lawn set alight at house next door to childcare centre”; “Three cars torched, shots fired in Kambah”; “Cars, house shot at with high-powered rifle in Waramanga”; “Bullets fired into home next to childcare centre”; and “Man shot twice in the leg in Kambah”. There was a front page headed “War zone”.
Gangs have increased in this territory from one to at least four. We have had another that has tried to establish itself. The number of activities has increased. Just last week, we saw the shooting in Kambah. We have heard about alleged assaults in a restaurant in Phillip.
This government has ignored the evidence that these laws are effective. Clearly they are effective, because bikie gangs have multiplied; they have quadrupled. They are human rights compliant, or they can be, if we make that assessment under section 28. The last laws I tabled in this place were deemed human rights compliant by the Human Rights Commissioner, and the New South Wales laws have been to the High Court.
It is ironic, isn’t it? This is a government that is about to support cannabis legislation tomorrow. They have said that they are going to support the cannabis legislation. Let me be very clear that it is problematic in terms of the evidence. The evidence from the AMA in their submission on the cannabis laws is that there is potentially a five times increase in the rate of psychosis from cannabis users. That is the AMA submission. The AMA submission says they should not be supporting the legalisation of cannabis, but that has been ignored. The evidence there is being cherrypicked: “We will ignore the AMA when it comes to the cannabis laws.” It also looks as though they are going to ignore the constitutional issues, because section 109 of the constitution states that where a law of a state is inconsistent with laws of the commonwealth, commonwealth laws will prevail and state law will be invalid.
We know there is a constitutional problem here. Lawyers from the Law Society have come forward and said, “This is going to be incompatible because it is going to be in conflict with federal laws.” “No; we will ignore that. We will cherrypick. We will ignore the AMA and we will ignore the advice from people in the Law Society that these laws are in conflict. When it suits us, we will cherrypick advice; when it does not suit us, we will just ignore it.”
A great example of ignoring constitutional advice was that of the same-sex marriage debate. I supported same-sex marriage; I was part of the Liberal-Nationals campaign for same-sex marriage. When they brought laws into this place, those opposite were warned that the laws were unconstitutional; they were warned by the Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia. They ignored it. They ignored that advice. They brought the laws into this place, at great expense. The High Court ruled unanimously that the laws were invalid, as I said in this place during that debate. The High Court said:
… the absence of a provision permitting same sex marriage does not mean that the Territory legislature may make such a provision.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video