Page 3812 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 25 September 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
first presented and debated, we opposed it at that point. We then referred it to the standing committee on health, which has conducted an inquiry. That inquiry reported, its report was presented in this place and there has been a government response to it.
Thank goodness it did go to inquiry, because there is no doubt that that process fleshed out many of the problems that exist with this legislation from a health perspective, from a legal perspective and from the perspective of drug driving. Many of those issues remain unresolved. I would recommend members watch or read Mrs Dunne’s speech on the tabling of the committee report. I think it was very good. It encapsulated many of the problems that were identified, through that inquiry process, with this piece of legislation—that it is a very problematic piece of legislation.
We opposed it then and we oppose it now on a number of grounds. First are the health grounds, particularly mental illness. I think it is clear that this legislation will lead to increased cannabis consumption, particularly amongst younger people. The evidence presented by the AMA and a range of other experts makes it very clear that increased consumption of cannabis leads to increased psychosis—a fivefold increase in the risk of psychosis. So we do not support it, just as the AMA—I will go to what they had to say later—do not support this legislation because of the health impacts.
Drug driving remains a problem as well. The Chief Police Officer was on ABC Radio 666 this morning talking about that issue. It remains unresolved. Despite the endeavour by this government, the claim that it will take people out of the criminal justice system, I think what we are actually going to see is the perverse outcome of more people being charged with drug driving offences as a result of this legislation. The number of people engaging with the justice system as a result will increase.
Obviously there is then the conflict with federal law. Some of the major implications there remain. The Attorney-General, in his speech, made it very clear that individuals can still be charged under commonwealth law. Again, this not only puts individuals at a greater level of risk; our police out there on the beat are still working in this unclear legal framework. Any piece of legislation that we debate here and that we pass that remains ambiguous and unclear, both to the community and to the people we charge with enforcing those laws, has to be seen as bad legislation.
We opposed it on those grounds and we continue to oppose it because it is badly drafted legislation that creates a whole bunch of perverse outcomes. Our position has not changed. It is bad policy. It is bad legislation, the way the government is trying to do this with a whole bunch of workarounds and unresolved issues, particularly in relation to drug driving.
There are government amendments. We will be supporting those because they go some way to limiting the harm of this bill, but they certainly do not resolve much of the harm that will be created through this legislation. I will have more to say about that during the debate.
Let me turn specifically to each of the areas I have referred to—firstly, the health grounds. I quote from the AMA’s submission in respect of this legislation:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video