Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Australian Capital Territory Dangerous Drugs Bill 2023. Every Australian parent wants their children to grow up in a safe environment, every man and woman should be entitled to walk the streets without fear and every family should be free from the misery and pain of drug dependency. But these things are under threat in the Australian Capital Territory.

The ACT government's Drugs of Dependence (Personal Use) Amendment Act 2022 will commence shortly, on 28 October. It was a bill that was rushed through the ACT Legislative Assembly as a private member's bill to avoid scrutiny. On 28 October, the Labor-Greens government here in the ACT will roll out the red carpet to ice, heroin, cocaine, speed, acid and other drugs. In my very humble opinion, our nation's capital should not be our drug capital.

This bill does one very simple thing, and it is a very simple thing: it preserves the status quo. The single operative clause is short enough that I will read it into Hansard.

The Drugs of Dependence (Personal Use) Amendment Act 2022 (ACT) has no force or effect as a law of the Australian Capital Territory, except as regards the lawfulness or validity of anything done in accordance with that Act before the commencement of this Act.

In other words, my private senator's bill, moved on behalf of the coalition opposition, doesn't affect territory rights. It does not amend the powers of the ACT Legislative Assembly. It merely says that a bad law that will harm Australians has no effect.

The ACT Labor-Greens government has opened the door to dangerous drugs in Canberra and beyond. It is worth looking closely at the impacts of this ACT legislation. What have they done? In effect they've created a parking-fine scheme that applies to the possession of ice, heroin, cocaine, MDMA and speed, among other things.

The ACT drug laws that come into force shortly, on 28 October, do two things. First, they water down current drug offences. The current possession offence is punishable by an $8,000 fine and imprisonment for two years. This is now replaced by a two-tiered system. If you only have a 'small quantity of the drug', you face a penalty of just a single penalty unit and, for larger amounts, the fine remains but the potential sentence is reduced from two years to just six months. Second, under the new drug laws, if a police officer believes on reasonable grounds that a person has committed a 'simple drug offence' and is only holding 'a small quantity', they may issue an offence notice.

So, in effect, in but a few days what you will have in the ACT is a parking fine for drug-like situations. The notice requires a person to pay a penalty of nearly $100 or attend an approved drug diversion program—$100 and you never go to court. Colleagues, the bitter reality is that parking offences in Canberra are actually now going to be treated more seriously than dangerous drugs, because in Canberra you will pay more for parking across the lines in a shopping centre than being caught carrying ice. You will pay more for stopping your car near a postbox than for the possession of heroin.

Lawyers, police and pharmacists have explicitly warned against these laws. The ACT Law Society expressly said that the ACT drug laws would have 'a minimal effect on diverting drug users away from the criminal justice system'. The Australian Federal Police have given evidence about cycles of crime that link drug use to offences relating to assault, burglary, stolen motor vehicles, theft, justice procedures and firearms. They gave an operational example of how similar personal use schemes have been exploited to sell cannabis to Canberra schoolchildren as young as 12 years old. What government in its right mind (a) condones that and (b) is prepared to then pass legislation that actually extends this to more harmful substances? That would be the ACT Labor-Greens government here in Canberra.

Our pharmacists, who are on the front line of addiction and dangerous drugs use every single day, expressly said ACT drug laws would be 'counterproductive to the aim of harm minimisation'. The logic behind the ACT drug laws just isn't there. From 28 October, as I said, in but a few days time, among other things, a person can carry up to 1.5 grams of ice, 1.5 grams of cocaine or one gram of heroin. Let's now put that into context. According to the US Department of Justice, that is up to five times the average lethal dose of heroin. You'll be able to carry in the ACT five times the average lethal dose of heroin with little to no penalty, and it is meant to be for personal use.

Then you look at the operational issues that arise. They are absolutely diabolical for the police. There is no clarity for police whether the territory laws are consistent with Commonwealth legislation. This leaves police choosing between potentially conflicting laws and potentially facing professional standards investigation for misconduct and failure to exercise duties if they apply the wrong one. There is no clarity on whether the small quantities of drugs are mixed weight or pure weight. Is it one gram of pure heroin or can I carry two grams and cut it down by 50 per cent? I would have thought you would actually want to know that. In any case, how are police meant to tell? Will they all now carry scales and purity testing kits?

What is then the result? As ACT Deputy Commissioner Gaughan has said, when police see someone doing a line of coke—and you can now do about 15 lines—historically they may have intervened, but they are probably not going to now. As ACT Policing described in an inquiry's submission: 'The decriminalisation of drugs does not of itself allow individuals to be connected with a health-led response. There is a real concern that the health services just aren't there.' And, in the meantime, as they pointed out—and this is a really serious point for the AFP to make—'drug use can be a driver of crime.' Would you not take that into consideration when you're actually decriminalising hard drugs? Clearly not in the ACT!

Perhaps more importantly, and what seems to have been forgotten by the Labor Greens government here, is these decriminalised drugs themselves are incredibly harmful. The ACT Law Society has said, 'We do not support the decriminalisation of any quantity of ice given the threat such poses to the public safety.' That's the ACT Law Society. They referenced a physician statement from the Australian Medical Association, which said: 'There is clear medical evidence that methamphetamine, and particularly crystal methamphetamine, ice, is a very harmful drug at the individual, community and societal levels. Methamphetamine is not a recreational soft or party drug and should never be referred to as such. Every effort must be made to avoid normalising methamphetamine use or minimising its harmful effects. Acute methamphetamine psychosis is one of the most damaging health consequences of methamphetamine use. It presents a major safety issue for healthcare staff and the intoxicated patient and his or her family.' But, for some baffling reason, the Labor Greens government in the ACT has decided it is a good idea to, in but a few days, release ice onto the streets of Canberra.

We know ice induced psychosis leads to violent rages. According to the government's own advice on the dangers associated with ice: high doses of ice and frequent use can cause ice psychosis, which can last a few days, cause severe paranoid delusions and hallucinations and unusual aggressive or violent behaviour. Blind Freddie can tell you those rages risk the safety and welfare of emergency service workers, health professionals and bystanders. And to the suppliers of these hard drugs: Welcome to Canberra! They are organised crime figures and outlaw motorcycle gangs. They're the people who are going to be the beneficiary of the ACT government's laws.

People have asked, is there a case for federal intervention? This bill responds to the egregiously bad public policy outcomes of decriminalising ice and other hard drugs. It also responds to concerns raised by the Australian Border Force and the Australian Federal Police about the need for a national approach and about the cross-border impacts of the ACT legislation, because the ACT drug criminalisation laws create a problem that extends beyond Canberra's borders. It is a national problem, but the Prime Minister of Australia, the man who could do something, doesn't just sit back and do nothing but sits there and condones the legislation.

As a spokesperson for the Australian Border Force said, 'Effective drug policy reform requires all jurisdictions to work together to ensure the policy is holistic, coordinated and aligned to national approach that addresses supply, harm and demand reduction.' The AFP is on record saying the changes would lure recreational drug users into Canberra and spark an increase in drug-related deaths. In the words of Deputy Commissioner Gaughan, it would be 'naive to think people won't come down, even for a weekend, to get on the coke and not worry about the cops.' Make no mistake, colleagues, these laws will help line the pockets of criminals and organised crime groups, who will be lining up to sell to drug users in Canberra to meet the increased demands. This will send a clear signal to motorcycle gangs and organised crime all along the Hume Highway, but the jurisdictional issues and unintended consequences do not stop there.

Up until now the Commonwealth government has applied ACT criminal laws in a range of circumstances. We trusted the ACT to adopt a sensible approach to crime, but it now appears that that trust has been misplaced.

As ACT Policing expressly noted:

The current Bill would apply to JBT. Laws applying in this context may also apply on certain flights under the Crimes (Aviation) Act 1991 (Cth).

This now raises further concerns because, under the Crimes at Sea Act, criminal law in Jervis Bay also applies on Australian ships and to Australian citizens on foreign ships outside of what is called the adjacent area. Roughly speaking, this is a reference to areas outside of Australian waters.

The question has therefore been raised: as a result of these ACT laws, can Australian citizens now carry ice on ships, in international waters, facing nothing more than the threat of a $100 fine? I would have thought that, before you decriminalise, you would want to know the answer to that. Have Andrew Barr and Rachel Stephen-Smith now unwittingly created a cruise ship drug charter? Again, I would have thought you'd want the answer to that before you went down this path. What an absolutely absurd situation!

Let's now have a look at the actual impact. I don't want these ridiculous outcomes to distract from the very real harms of this badly-thought-out law. Three groups will pay for the ACT government's cavalier approach to drug policy. The first group will be the people who travel down the Hume Highway hoping to experience the ACT's party lifestyle. For many it will end in addiction and heartache—and, for some, even in death. The second group who will pay are the first responders—emergency workers and bystanders who will now find themselves facing a person in an ice induced psychosis. And the final group who will pay are the families. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery today of one of the Canberra mothers who lost her daughter earlier this year to an accidental overdose. Thank you for your courage in coming to see this bill be debated in the Australian Senate today.

Only misery will result from this terrible law. The ACT drug law is a bad law. It must be thrown out in the interests of all Canberrans and all Australians. I implore the government: please don't turn your back on people in the ACT.