Page 4260 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 23 October 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR HANSON (Murrumbidgee) (4.59), in reply: In closing the debate, I will respond to some of the comments made in the debate. I turn first to the comments by Ms Cody. She talked about the fact that legalising cannabis is popular. It may be. That is not actually the issue for debate here. It is whether this is going to cause somebody who thinks that they are doing something legal to be prosecuted under commonwealth law.
As I made very clear, the substantive issue is not about whether or not we want cannabis to be legal or about whether or not it is popular. Absolutely, I accept—I have made these comments in public prior to today—that it is the will of the Assembly. I can count the 13 votes. We have had that debate. We understand that that is the word of the Assembly. We have moved on from that debate to the legal complexities and the minefield that is being created by the way that this legislation has been bolted together.
I am surprised that someone who purports to have a law degree has such a poor understanding of what we are actually debating today. I must say that I was somewhat concerned that Ms Cody seemed to be re-litigating old arguments that cannabis does not cause harm when it comes to mental health. I am disappointed by that. I am a little disturbed by that. I am certainly glad that I heard Mr Rattenbury, Mr Barr and Mr Pettersson identify and acknowledge that cannabis use can be harmful. For Ms Cody to come into this place and re-litigate those debunked arguments that cannabis does not have linkages to anxiety and other ill effects is problematic. It is not actually the substance of the debate today.
She also talked about the issue of ending the war on drugs and so on. The reality is that there is no war on cannabis here in the ACT, on small personal use. Certainly in terms of big quantities and the people who are dealing it, it remains an issue, and rightly. But the effect of the legislation that has been enacted here in the ACT and that is yet to commence is to restart that war in a sense because what it does, based on the advice provided to us by the federal Attorney-General, is actually re-criminalise small amounts of cannabis use.
As the federal Attorney-General has said, the legislation does not do what they think it does. However, as I said, we accept that it is the will of this Assembly. There are many things that the Canberra Liberals disagree with that are passed in this Assembly. This one is particularly problematic in that it potentially can lead to somebody being convicted of a crime whilst doing something that they have been told by ACT government ministers is actually legal.
There is a view being put forward by those opposite that somehow this is political interference, that the feds should not be telling police what crimes they should be pursuing and that individual officers should make judgement calls. I do not think anyone is saying that, but what the federal Attorney-General has said is that he expects police officers in the ACT to charge people with offences, and this remains a commonwealth offence.
The problem is—it has always been the case—that the advice that has been received is that the defence that previously existed that meant people could be provided with a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video