Page 2111 - Week 07 - Thursday, 20 August 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
said—but we will be supporting this motion. That is not to say that we support all of the “notes” section, which typifies some aspects of law reform that the government has done in a certain way. But when it comes to the nub of the issue, we will be supporting it. I will explain in more detail.
The motion recognises the challenge of co-occurring mental illness and alcohol and other drug use. That is important. When I compare it to the original bill that Mr Pettersson brought into this place some time ago, on cannabis, which perhaps did not recognise some of the other sides of the argument, I think that is a good step forward, and I welcome that as part of this debate. I think it is important. There is a criminal aspect but there is also a health aspect to what we are debating here today.
It is good also that the motion calls for the government to continue to take a harm minimisation approach to alcohol and other drug issues. We support that. From time to time in this place we have disagreed on the nuance of policy as to how that should take form—as we did with cannabis, removing the simple offence notice, and as we have with pill testing—but that is not to say that we do not share that intent: the harm minimisation approach to alcohol and drugs.
The motion also calls on the government to “invest in community and hospital-based alcohol and other drug and mental health services” and to work to better integrate mental health and drug and alcohol services across primary and community health services and hospital care. That is something that we absolutely support. I am glad to put on the record that the Canberra Liberals have campaigned for many years to see an improvement in those sorts of services. I am glad that Mr Pettersson recognises that that is an important part of responding to issues caused by illicit prescription drugs and alcohol.
The nub of the motion is a call to investigate the feasibility of a simple offence notice for other drugs of dependence to ascertain the legal, social and health impacts. This is a little ironic. It was not that long ago that Mr Pettersson argued for the removal of simple offence notices for cannabis. At that point, we argued that they had proved to be very effective. In striking that balance that we are trying to achieve between the justice issues and the health issues—and trying to deter people from using drugs, particularly young people, but also making sure that they do not end up tied up in the criminal justice system—the simple offence notice has proven very effective over many years for the use of cannabis. We have debated that at length in this place, so it would be disingenuous for me to then say that we should not look at the simple offence notice when it applies to other drugs.
That is not to say that, after looking at it, we will necessarily say that it should occur. There may be some drugs and some situations where we would never support a simple offence notice being applied. But I can envisage circumstances—it might be at the music festivals, for example, that we have talked about in this place on many occasions, where young people take a drug and find themselves in the criminal justice system facing criminal sanctions—where a simple offence notice may be a better way of proceeding for all concerned. I can envisage that. I welcome a debate, an examination, a look into the feasibility of how this would play out.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video