David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on Senator Cash's bill, the Australian Capital Territory Dangerous Drugs Bill 2023. Over the last few days, we've heard Senator Cash and her colleagues argue for the Senate to take a leading role in reviewing the laws of the Australian Capital Territory. It was only last year that this chamber voted unanimously to reaffirm the rights of the territories to self-govern and debate and make decisions for themselves, as the states do. It passed on the voices. Clearly, much has changed when it comes to the attitude towards voluntary assisted dying and the attitude towards the territories being able to make their own decisions, as, today, Senator Cash has reneged on that. Using this chamber to try and overturn a law made by a democratically-elected assembly can be seen in no other way than as trying to erode self-government in our territory. It is a clear, unmistakable breach of our territory rights.

In the ACT, we have the right to elect a legislature and a government and to hold them to account, just like the people in New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and every state in Australia have. If we're unhappy with decisions made by the ACT government and the ACT Legislative Assembly, we have ways to let them know about it and ways to address it. The most obvious way, of course, is elections. Elections are the ultimate accountability mechanism, and I would expect the coalition to respect the people's right to have a say at elections and to respect the principles of democracy—particularly when you have the leader of the Canberra Liberals, Elizabeth Lee, also requesting, urging, her federal colleagues not to try and intervene.

The type of paternal control that the coalition is seeking to restore today is what set us on track to the ACT being unable to consider voluntary assisted dying for 25 years. It wasn't until each state had considered voluntary assisted dying for themselves, and after a change in representation in this place, that we were finally able to get rid of the Andrews bill. Of course, we remember that up until last year Senator Cash personally stood in the way of the ACT being able to consider voluntary assisted dying. The NT and ACT governments wrote to her as Attorney-General in 2021 to ask her to allow the territories to consider voluntary assisted dying, and she said no. When it comes to the territories—the ACT and the NT—Senator Cash and the coalition have a rich history of saying no. While this is a story for another day, I'll also point out that it's not just mainland territories. The coalition abolished Norfolk Island's rights to have a say on anything, removing their legislative assembly and installing Commonwealth administrators to manage their council. The states should breathe a sigh of relief that they have the protections in the Constitution, otherwise you could bet that Senator Cash and the coalition would have long ago abolished this inconvenient second level of government.

I worry that the coalition will try again to erase our right to consider voluntary assisted dying for ourselves. This is the first step in their long game that will stretch across this entire term of parliament, a game designed to challenge voluntary assisted dying laws. Despite calls to do so, Senator Cash has not ruled out a future challenge to voluntary assisted dying laws, so it remains firmly on the table. But I'd like to say to Senator Cash that the territories will not accept that. It is our right to decide, and we will not have senators representing other states and territories, who already have voluntary assisted dying laws in place, telling us whether or not we should be able to consider such laws. In the campaign to overturn the Andrews bill, we've lost advocates, people who dedicated the end of their life to making sure that we have the same rights as the states to make and consider laws. I hope that Senator Cash rules out any future attempt to invalidate the ACT's future voluntary assisted dying laws.

On the matter of drug policy, these are matters that we should feel genuinely concerned about. Alcohol related deaths have risen year on year over the past four years. I don't mean alcohol related deaths caused by motor vehicle accidents; I mean deaths that are directly attributable to alcohol. I don't know a single person who hasn't been touched by alcohol addiction at some point in their lives, whether that's a person grieving a mum lost too soon or a person trying to support a brother who is medicating with alcohol. Opioids are also a concern, although I note that pharmaceutical opioids account for the vast majority of opioid induced deaths. I too would like to acknowledge a Canberran here in the gallery today who has come to share her experience, and I would be grateful for an opportunity to hear that experience firsthand.

What I would say is that these are not issues impacting just the ACT; they are issues that impact all communities in Australia. Every state and territory is looking at alcohol and drugs in some way, looking at serious policy reform. Queensland are taking a health led approach to their drug policies. New South Wales are holding a drug summit to discuss ideas for drug reform. I have spoken with the sector, including police representatives, and there are clear issues across the nation when it comes to the supply of drugs and the demand for drugs, as well as issues with our systems to treat people for addiction and get them healthy. While issues are more prominent in our major cities, I've spoken to people in our regions who struggle to get sober in their home communities, because there aren't the services there to care for them.

Every time the coalition comes into this chamber to attack our territory rights, it does a disservice to our entire nation. By singling out the ACT for political gain, we won't hear the experiences of people in WA, Tasmania, Queensland or any other region of Australia. We won't hear what it's like for people living outside a major city to try to access treatment services.

The coalition enter this chamber claiming to have a sterling record on drugs, saying that their concern is genuine. In fact, I note that Senator Cash said this morning that we need nationally consistent laws and policies working in tandem with Commonwealth policies such as those applying to the border. I agree with that, but I find Senator Cash's statements questionable given the coalition defunded national infrastructure that supported collaboration between states and territories on drug policy. In 2013 they defunded the alcohol and other drug not-for-profit ADAC, which had existed for almost 50 years and had the most comprehensive library of alcohol and other drug services. In 2014 they defunded the Australian National Council on Drugs and the National Indigenous Drug and Alcohol Committee, two independent bodies that were key advisers on alcohol and other drugs. They also disbanded the Ministerial Drug and Alcohol Forum in 2020. As a result, we're left in a situation where there are few mechanisms for national coordination of drug policy. There are few bodies that could look at exactly the issues that Senator Cash has attempted to raise in the Senate this week.

Of course, you'll rarely hear the coalition speak about the drugs that kill the most people every year. You won't hear them talk about tobacco, alcohol or prescription opioids. Since 2013 the Nationals have received some $215,000 from just a single member of big tobacco, Philip Morris, and that's given everything we know about the harms of tobacco and the cost of it. It's very difficult to separate gambling and alcohol interests, as there are many companies that provide both alcohol and gambling products, so I'll give you the combined amount, Madam Acting Deputy President. In 2021-22 the coalition received over a million dollars from companies that profit from gambling and alcohol products. Of course, there are also the donations from big pharma. These companies have unfettered access to this building, and clearly they've been successful in ensuring our attention is never focused on the harms caused by their industries. If the coalition would like to minimise harm in Australia, they might wish to consider supporting the crossbench's call for lobbying and political donation reform. You cannot tell me that the access to this building, the lobbying we see, the revolving door of ministers and staff, when they lose an election, flooding into companies working in government relations and into lobbying firms that work in a related—