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

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum in relation to the bill

Leave granted.

I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated into Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

I rise to speak on the Australian Capital Territory Dangerous Drugs Bill 2023.

President, 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 on the 28th of October 2023.

It was a Bill that was rushed through the ACT Legislative Assembly as a Private Member's Bill to avoid scrutiny.

And on the 28th of October, the Labor-Greens government will roll out the red carpet to ice, heroin, cocaine, speed, acid and other drugs.

Our nation's capital should not be the drug capital.

What does the Bill do?

President, this Bill does one simple thing. It preserves the status quo.

The single operative clause is short enough that it's worth reading into Hansard.

The Drugs o f 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.

It doesn't affect territory rights.

It doesn't amend the powers of the ACT legislative assembly.

It says that a bad law that will harm Australians has no effect.

What have people said

President, the ACT Labor-Greens government has opened the door to dangerous drugs in Canberra and beyond.

It's worth looking closely at the impacts of this ACT legislation.

What have they done?

They have 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 on the 28th of 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 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 2 years to just 6 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.

This is like a parking fine for drugs. The notice requires person to pay a penalty of $100, or attend an approved drug diversion program.

One hundred dollars—and you never go to court.

But colleagues, the bitter reality is that parking offences in Canberra are actually treated more seriously than dangerous drugs.

Because in Canberra you will now 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 post box than for possession of heroin.

Lawyers, police and pharmacists explicitly warned against these laws.

The ACT Law Society expressly said the ACT drug laws would "have a minimal effect on diverting drug users away from the criminal justice system".

The AFP has 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 a "personal use" scheme has been exploited to sell cannabis to Canberra schoolchildren as young as 12 years old.

And our pharmacists—who are on the front line of addiction and dangerous drug use every day—expressly said the ACT drug laws would be "counter-productive to the aim of harm minimisation".

Why have they done this, an d what are the impacts?

President, the logic of the ACT drug laws just isn't there.

From 28 October, among other things, a person can carry up to 1.5 grams of ice, 1.5 grams of cocaine or 1 gram of heroin.

To put that in context, according to the US Department of Justice, that is up to five times the average lethal dose of heroin.

And this is meant to be for personal use!

The operational issues for police are diabolical.

There is no clarity for police whether these Territory laws are consistent with Commonwealth legislation.

This leaves the Police choosing between potentially conflicting laws, and potentially facing professional standards investigation for misconduct and failure to execute 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 1 gram of pure heroin? Or can I carry 2 grams, and cut it down by 50 per cent?

And in any case, how are police meant to tell? Will they all carry scales and purity testing kits now?

What is the result?

As AFP Deputy Commissioner Gaughan said, when police see someone doing a line of coke:

… historically, they may have intervened; they are probably not going to now.

As ACT Policing described in an inquiry 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, drug use can be a driver of crime.

But perhaps more importantly, these decriminalised drugs themselves are incredibly harmful.

The ACT Law Society said, quote:

… we do not support the decriminalisation of any quantity of ice, given the threat such poses to public safety.

They referenced a position 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. Acutely, it presents a major safety issue for health car e 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 release ice into 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, causing: severe paranoid delusions and hallucinations, and unusual, aggressive or violent behaviour.

Those rages risk the safety and welfare of emergency services workers, health professionals and bystanders.

And the suppliers of these hard drugs are organised crime figures and outlaw motorcycle gangs. They are the real beneficiaries of these laws.

The case for federal intervention

President, this Bill responds to the egregiously bad public policy outcomes of decriminalising ice and other hard drugs.

But it also concerns raised by the Australian Border Force and Australian Federal Police about the need for a national approach, and about the cross-border impacts of the ACT legislation.

Because the ACT drug decriminalisation laws create a problem that extends beyond Canberra's border. It is a national problem, but the Prime Minister is doing nothing.

As a spokesman for the Australian Border Force said:

Effective drug policy reform requires all jurisdictions to work together to ensure the policy is holistic, co-ordinated and aligned to a national approach that addresses supp ly, harm and demand reduction.

The AFP is on the 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, quote, "naive not 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, 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 demand.

They will send a clear signal to motorcycle gangs and organised crime all along the Hume Highway.

But the jurisdictional issues and unintended consequences don't 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.

It now appears that this trust has been misplaced. As ACT Policing expressly noted:

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

This raises further concerns.

Under the Crimes at Sea Act, criminal laws in Jervis Bay also apply on Australian ships, and to Australian citizens on foreign ships, outside what is called the "adjacent area". Roughly speaking, this is a reference to areas outside Australian waters.

The question has been raised: as a result of these ACT laws, can Australian citizens now carry ice on ships in international waters, faced with nothing more than the threat of a $100 fine?

Have Andrew Barr and Rachel Stephen-Smith now unwittingly created a cruise ship drug charter?

What an absurd situation.

Who will suffer as a result?

President, 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, death.

The second group who will pay are the first responders, emergency workers and bystanders who find themselves facing a person with ice-induced psychosis.

The final group who will pay are the families. Only misery will result from this terrible new law.

Conclusion

The ACT drug law is a bad law.

It must be thrown out, in the interests of all Canberrans, and all Australians.

I commend this Bill to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.