Page 463 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We do not have a punitive approach. What we want to do is reduce harm. What we in the opposition want to do is make sure that young people are not damaged. I reject this rushed, dragged-through legislation. It is a hodgepodge. It is subject to numerous amendments. It is subject to a raft of criticisms, even from people who support it. Even people who support it say there are concerns about the way the legislation is drafted.
I foreshadow that when this bill is adjourned at some stage today—before we even vote on it, I understand—I will then move that we look at this in a committee, do it deliberatively and do it properly. I do not see what the rush is and I am not sure why the Labor Party and the Greens seem to think that this is something we should ram through, given the concerns that have been raised by the community and the genuine risks apparent, particularly for young people, in the consumption of increased rates of cannabis.
MR BARR (Kurrajong—Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Social Inclusion and Equality, Minister for Tourism and Special Events and Minister for Trade, Industry and Investment) (11.54): There is no doubt that our territory is a proudly progressive place. Our community faces challenges and big debates with an open mind. We have demonstrated over many decades that we are prepared to consider a new approach to public policy challenges when old ways are not working.
Outright prohibition of cannabis is an example of an approach that clearly is not working. According to surveys by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 8.4 per cent of Canberrans, around one in 12 people, report having used cannabis in the past 12 months. Every day, people in our community are using cannabis, despite it not being legal and despite it being unable to be accessed except by non-legal means. The clear evidence from drug law reform around the world is that a harm minimisation approach delivers better outcomes, both for individuals and communities, than a head in the sand approach which assumes that prohibition prevents use.
We have understood this in this jurisdiction, and particularly in this parliament, throughout our history. That is why the ACT has a history of pursuing progressive but considered drug law reform.
As has been referenced by Mr Hanson, in 1992 we were one of the first jurisdictions in Australia to decriminalise the personal possession of small amounts of cannabis. I note with some irony that the Canberra Liberals opposed those reforms in 1992. They were on the wrong side of history then when they opposed that important reform. Many of the arguments that we have just heard from Mr Hanson were proffered by the Canberra Liberals in 1992 when they opposed those reforms. We have heard from them again in this debate and, once again, they have declared themselves to be on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of public opinion and the wrong side of the balance of evidence.
In the early 2000s the ACT government introduced programs such as the court alcohol and drug assessment service and the illicit drug diversion initiative, both of which
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video