Page 497 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
area. The bill does not contravene the federal drug laws and the ACT is well within its jurisdiction to enact this bill.
This bill has been drafted carefully to ensure that it is not inconsistent with commonwealth law. The commonwealth has not claimed to cover the field. Traditionally, the states and territories and the commonwealth have all made laws regarding drugs, particularly cannabis. The Assembly is perfectly entitled to legislate in this area. In fact, if differences did arise between territory and commonwealth laws, the commonwealth has provided a mechanism to resolve these differences under the commonwealth Criminal Code, which recognises and respects the states’ and territories’ self-determination in relation to drug offences.
The commonwealth Criminal Code provides for drug offences under part 9.1. However, under section 313.1 of the Criminal Code there is a defence to offences under part 9.1 for conduct justified or excused by or under a law of a state or territory. In addition, under section 313.2, there is a defence for reasonable belief that the conduct is justified or excused by or under a law; that is, the person was under a mistaken but reasonable belief that the conduct was justified or excused by or under a law of the commonwealth or a state or territory.
So the Assembly is entitled to make Mr Pettersson’s bill law, which, through legalisation, would excuse the use of small amounts of cannabis and adopt a harm minimisation approach. If someone is charged under the Criminal Code for possession of small amounts of cannabis, there are defences which respect territory laws in the area.
I commend Mr Pettersson for crafting a bill that gets reform started in this country. It is a bill that, through its minimalism, has been deliberately careful in its drafting so as to not trip over the federal law. I encourage members—
Members interjecting—
MADAM SPEAKER: Members, can I please have quiet.
MR STEEL: I encourage members looking to make amendments in the detail stage to be very careful in making sure that in their enthusiasm to make amendments they also do not trip over the wire.
This is a bill that does not seek to deal with the supply or sale of cannabis, because it cannot. But it should be supported on the premise alone that possession of small amounts of cannabis is not a matter for the justice system.
This bill has started a national conversation about the federal law and the law of other states and territories on the legalisation of cannabis. It is not the first time that the ACT has led the nation in implementing progressive reform and it will not be the first time that other jurisdictions follow the ACT’s lead in change. Labor supports this bill to reduce harm to the most vulnerable in our community. If we had a Liberal Party with even a skerrick of liberalism left in it, all members of this place might be now rising to speak in support of this bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video