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

Before moving the motion I would seek leave to amend it, in the terms circulated in the chamber.

Leave granted.

I amend the motion and now move the amended motion:

The motion was unavailable at the time of publishing.

It's not often that you stand in dismay in the Australian Senate, but I do that today. In moving this motion, why do I stand in dismay? Because every Australian parent wants their children to grow up in a safe environment, every man and woman should be entitled to walk the streets in their suburbs without fear, and every family should be free from the misery and pain of drug dependency. The reason I have moved this motion is that these things are under threat in the Australian Capital Territory. It is a very simple motion. All it will do is establish a committee to inquire into and report on the ACT government's concerning laws that come into effect in less than a fortnight. The ACT government's Drugs of Dependence (Personal Use) Amendment Act 2022 will commence formally on 28 October 2023. This is legislation that, by the ACT government's own admission, was rushed through the ACT Legislative Assembly as a private member's bill. Why did they do that? To avoid scrutiny. I say: shame on the ACT government for rushing through the ACT assembly a bill that will have a detrimental impact on not just people in the ACT but, potentially, people throughout Australia.

Let's talk about what's going to happen in about two weeks, on 28 October. The Labor-Greens government will roll out the red carpet to the following: ice, heroin, cocaine, speed, acid and other drugs. In my humble opinion, our nation's capital, let alone any other place in Australia, should not be the drug capital of Australia. While the ACT government has decided to move away from scrutiny of this piece of legislation, I personally believe, given its potential implications for the health and safety of both Canberrans and the wider community, that the Australian Senate should undertake the scrutiny of this particular legislation. If the motion is successful, the Senate will investigate the actual, real-life impacts this terrible law will have on residents in the ACT and surrounds and on the broader Australian public.

In the first instance, this not unusual. This is not an unusual step for the Australian Senate to take. It is not uncommon for decisions of state and territory governments to be examined, inquired into and reported on by the Australian Senate, so this is not an unusual step. The simple reality is that the ACT government, quite deliberately—this is a conscious decision—is about to unleash a potential impact that goes beyond its borders and thus requires national leadership. It is leadership that the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, and those of us in the Liberal Party and the National Party are prepared to show.

In two weeks, what does the ACT actually intend to do? From 28 October, among other things, a person in the ACT will be able to carry up to 1.5 grams of ice, 1.5 grams of cocaine or one gram of heroin without fear of any criminal conviction and without risk of anything more substantial than a small fine. People might say: 'Hold on. What does that actually mean?' Let me put this into a context that perhaps anyone listening in might actually understand. According to the US Department of Justice, one gram of heroin is up to five times the average lethal dose of heroin. The ACT government has already passed the legislation that is actually going to allow that to happen. This is meant to be for personal use. So the ACT government are saying, 'You can lawfully carry one gram of heroin,' but what they don't tell people is that, according to the US Department of Justice, that is up to five times the average lethal dose of heroin. For those who are in any doubt about that, 'lethal dose' means death. You die from taking this dose.

For police, the operational issues alone are diabolical. The police have put this on the record. There is no clarity for police as to whether these territory laws are consistent with Commonwealth legislation. What does that actually mean? It leaves the police choosing between potentially conflicting laws—that's great when you are dealing with a potentially lethal dose of heroin!—and potentially facing professional standards investigation for misconduct and failure to execute duties if they apply the wrong one. That's going to help the police, who just want to do their job! There is also no clarity—and this is where Senate scrutiny is required—on whether small quantities of drugs are mixed weight or pure weight. That has potentially a substantial impact. Is it one gram of pure heroin, or can I carry two grams and cut it down by 50 per cent? In any case, how are the police meant to tell this? Will they be walking around carrying scales and purity test kits? What is the actual result? The AFP Deputy Commissioner Gaughan said that when police see someone doing a line of coke:

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

Fantastic work, isn't it? That's a great end result of the ACT government's legislation! As ACT Policing described, in a submission to the inquiry, 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.

Let's again go back to what's going to happen in two weeks.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Better and better!

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

It does. It just gets better and better, Senator Scarr. I can now carry one gram of heroin, which is potentially five times the lethal dose, but ACT Policing have said there is a real concern because the health services just aren't there. That is a recipe for complete, total and utter personal disaster in the first instance, but that personal disaster is then going to have flow-on effects to other people. In the meantime, the ACT police have pointed out that drug use can also be a driver of crime. Who would have thought? Quite frankly, blind Freddy could have told the ACT government that drug use is a driver of crime.

But, perhaps more importantly, these decriminalised drugs themselves are incredibly harmful. The ACT Law Society themselves have said:

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

They then referenced a position from the Australian Medical Association which said:

1. There is clear medical evidence that methamphetamine, and particularly crystal methamphetamine ('ice'), is a very harmful drug at the individual, community and societal levels.

2. 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.

3. Acute methamphetamine psychosis is one of the most damaging health consequences of methamphetamine use. Acutely, it presents a major safety issue for health care staff and the intoxicated patient and his or her family.

But, because it wasn't subject to scrutiny, guess what? We haven't been able to explore this. But in the first instance I would probably, as a lawmaker, have listened to the Deputy Commissioner of the AFP. I probably would have listened to ACT Policing. I probably would have listened to the ACT Law Society. And I definitely would have listened to the Australian Medical Association. But, for some baffling reason—I say 'baffling' ironically, colleagues—the Labor-Greens government in the ACT has decided it is actually a good idea to release ice onto the streets of Canberra, and that's going to happen in two weeks. We also know—this is evidence again—that ice-induced psychosis leads to violent rages. According to the ACT government's own advice—you've got to love this, because this is their 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:

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They've already got it.

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

But not only that; those rages risk the safety and welfare of emergency service workers, health professionals and bystanders. They are the ones who are going to be cleaning up the problem—'That's their problem.'—and the suppliers of these hard drugs, organised crime figures and outlaw motorcycle gangs, will actually be the real beneficiaries of these laws. And guess what? In Canberra now you will pay—I kid you not, colleagues—more for parking across the lines in a shopping centre than if you are caught carrying ice. You will actually pay more for stopping your car near a post box in the ACT than for possessing heroin.

Let's just put this into context. Lawyers, police and pharmacists have explicitly warned against these laws. The ACT Law Society has said the ACT drug laws would have a minimal effect on diverting drug users away from the criminal justice system. The AFP have given evidence about cycles of crime that link drug use to offences, including assault, burglary, stolen motor vehicles, theft, justice procedures and firearms. They also gave operational examples of how a similar personal use scheme has been exploited to sell cannabis to Canberra schoolchildren as young as 12 years old. But, despite this evidence, guess what? It slipped through the ACT Legislative Assembly and, in two weeks time, the reality of what I am saying is about to become a fact. Let's have a look at what our pharmacists have said. By any length of it, they are on the front line of addiction and dangerous drug use every day. They have expressly said that the ACT drug laws would be counterproductive to the aim of harm minimisation.

As we stand here, all we are asking for is the ability for the Senate to undertake an enquiry into the operational effect of these laws—because, ultimately, it is not the ACT government that is going to pay for this bad law; the people I have referred to are going to.

But let's look at other potential effects and the people who will actually pay for the ACT government's cavalier approach to drug policy. The first group will be people who travel down the Hume Highway hoping to experience in two weeks time the ACT's party lifestyle. For many, it will end in addiction and heartache and for some it will end in death. The second group who will pay are the first responders, the emergency responders and the bystanders. They are the ones who will have to clean up the mess. The final group who will pay are the families. I have been personally contacted by families in the ACT who have lost children because they overdosed on drugs. They are the final group who will pay.

In my humble opinion, it is only misery that can result from this terrible new law. All we are asking for is for the Senate to have the ability to undertake a review, for the reasons that I have set out. In two weeks time drugs will be legal in those amounts in the ACT. I believe the Australian Senate has a responsibility to review the impact, the scope and the issues that will come for the police, for families and other first responders. I would hope that all of us in the Senate can unite in that regard and support the motion.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is shameful for the opposition, for the shadow Attorney-General, to so grossly misrepresent laws that have been passed by the ACT Legislative Assembly and to so grossly misrepresent the process that the ACT Legislative Assembly went through in passing those laws. We have just heard such an extraordinary misinformation rant on this bill from the shadow Attorney-General. It does no credit to the opposition and in fact it causes direct harm to those people who have in good faith engaged with the evidence, engaged with their elected representatives and passed laws in the ACT Legislative Assembly that all the experts say will significantly reduce harm from illegal drugs. All the experts say that. Again, we get the opposition here trying to override territorians' right to self-government. They don't like what the ACT does—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Shoebridge; resume your seat. Senators on my left, standing order 197 says it's disorderly to interrupt a speaker on their feet. In a democracy people have a right to a different point of view, and this chamber should be the exemplar of that. Senator Shoebridge, you have the call.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Acting Deputy President. The coalition doesn't like what territorians have done. They don't like the fact that the people of the ACT have fundamentally rejected the coalition's failed war on drugs and have instead listened to the experts on addiction and illegal drugs. They've spoken with the overwhelming majority of the legal profession whose job it has been, up to now, to so mismanage the possession of illegal drugs. They've listened to the evidence and they've changed the law—not, as the shadow Attorney-General would suggest, to make it legal to have illegal drugs in the ACT. No. It's a decriminalisation path. If people are found with personal use quantities of drugs, the drugs are confiscated and a civil penalty is issued. Did you ever hear that from the shadow Attorney-General in her rant? No, because it's inconvenient to their post-fact view of the world. Did you hear the shadow Attorney-General mention the five days of hearings that the ACT Legislative Assembly had on this? The committee accepted submissions from across the ACT and had five days of hearings on the bill. They heard from the public in Canberra and the ACT, and they overwhelmingly supported these changes. Did you hear that from the shadow Attorney? No, because that's an inconvenient fact. The shadow Attorney-General then comes up and says, 'The Senate must have an inquiry.' Surely if you're going to make that kind of claim you do your research, at least, and if you do your research you speak the truth about this. The ACT Legislative Assembly had five days of hearings for the inquiry into this. They received over 50 submissions and hundreds and hundreds of survey responses, and the people of the ACT overwhelmingly backed in this reform. But that's too democratic for the coalition, isn't it? They hate the idea of self-government in the ACT. This is not the first time they've tried to overturn the ACT as it takes through progressive laws. We saw the same on the euthanasia bill, desperately trying to overturn self-government in the ACT. Now they're trying the same trick; they're trying the same deeply undemocratic attack on the groundbreaking law reform on drugs of dependence.

I think I know the thing that's really getting the coalition here, the thing that's keeping them awake at night. The thing about the recent law reform in the ACT that's making them wake up in a cold sweat of fear is that these laws are going to work. Getting away from the endless, losing, life-destroying war on drugs, which stops people getting treatment, criminalises addiction and has failed in every jurisdiction it's been tried in—when the ACT steps away from that with a decriminalisation model, it's actually going to work. That's what is really getting the coalition so hot under the collar here—that this is actually going to work.

When we heard the lies that the ACT government has not put in place additional funding for addiction and drug dependence, again, it does the coalition no credit. First of all, you have to realise there was a five-day inquiry. Then you have to read the report from the inquiry. Then you have to read the government's response to the inquiry. None of that has been done by the coalition, who try to pretend there hasn't been an inquiry. But, when you read the ACT government's response to the inquiry, one of the recommendations was that the ACT government should significantly increase its investment in alcohol and other drug services. Absolutely they should, and my Greens colleagues in the ACT have absolutely been pressing for this investment for years and years.

Now it is actually happening. People who have addiction are getting more services to have their addiction treated. They're not being put into jail. They're not being dragged through the courts. They're not being treated like a criminal because they have an addiction. They're actually going to get the treatment they need. That's what the ACT is doing, and that's what the coalition hates. They want to see money spent on courts, police and jails and not on opiate treatments, not on addiction treatments and not on drug and alcohol treatments. How has that gone? How many lives has that destroyed? How many more lives do you want to see destroyed?

This is what the ACT government has agreed to. I'll read from their response:

The Government has invested nearly $20 million in new funding for drug treatment and harm reduction services through the 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 Budgets, supporting implementation of the ACT Drug Strategy Action Plan 2018-2021. This includes:

•   expanding the capacity of Canberra Health Services' drug diversion service;

•   expanding drug treatment capacity at the Alexander Maconochie Centre;

•   increasing funding for distribution of the opioid overdose reversal drug naloxone and sterile injecting equipment to reduce harms from drug use;

•   increasing funding to the alcohol and other drug treatment and support service sector to provide treatment services to the ACT Drug and Alcohol Court;

•   joint funding of a mobile clinic operated by Directions Health Services to provide alcohol and drug, mental health and primary care services to disadvantaged community groups; and

•   establishing a northside Opioid Maintenance Treatment Clinic.

They've also established a national first with a permanent pill testing service, and they even managed to squeeze $4.3 million out of the federal government to provide some of these services and additional services.

When you take resources away from police, courts and jails when it comes to people who have an addiction and a health problem, you free up resources to deal with addiction—to keep families together, to provide alternative options and to give people a pathway out of their addiction, rather than jail them, take their jobs, take their hope and force people down a pathway of addiction. That's what the ACT government is doing.

This mob is a bunch of 1950s war-on-drugs types. Some of them might be Nixon war-on-drugs types. Some of them might have dragged themselves into the early 1970s. That mob think the answer to addiction is putting people in jail. What an absolute disgrace. Not only do they want to jail people because they have a health problem; they also want to tear down self-government in the ACT and they want to do it all in the one motion. What a disgrace.

This motion should never have been brought. The coalition needs to drag itself into the 21st century and realise two things. Who best decides the future of the ACT? People in the ACT, the ACT assembly, who went through good process, had an inquiry and backed in their laws. What should we be doing with drugs of addiction and the health and social concerns that come out of drugs of addiction? Treat it like a health problem. Invest the money where we save the most lives. Don't put people in jail for addiction.

If you look at what the coalition have done over the last 12 months, the last five years, every chance they've had to drag this country backwards, they've taken. They tear down the hopes of First Nations justice reforms. They were willing to run deeply offensive, fact-free attacks on refugees. Now they're playing the ugly politics of trying to criminalise people because they have an addiction. Well, shame on them. The Greens will never support that. We won't support this inquiry. We back in what the ACT government has done with the support of the ACT people, and we call on the coalition to grow a heart, to grow a brain and to stop with this nonsense.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've already got a heart; I don't need to grow a heart. Let me tell you what puts me into a cold sweat. Every single senator here should go back to their office, go on YouTube, put in 'Tenderloin area, San Francisco' and have a look at the dystopian nightmare of the policies which are advocated for by Senator Shoebridge and the Greens. Don't worry, I'll be reminding every Queenslander in the lead-up to the next federal election and the next state election in Queensland that the Greens support the decriminalisation of methamphetamine, ice et cetera. Thank you very much, Senator Shoebridge, I've got that on the record. Go on to YouTube and have a look at the dystopian nightmare in San Francisco and tell me that that is progressive and that is a forward-thinking—

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Scarr, resume your seat. Senators on my right, I preserved your right to speak without interruption because in a democracy people are allowed to have different views and our standing orders mean that they can be heard in silence. Senator Scarr.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr Acting Deputy President. I only need to do a short amount of research to see the issues with the advocacy of the sorts of policies that Senator Shoebridge advocated for. I suggest to Senator Shoebridge—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—that he looks at a research article from the Portland State University, hardly a cesspit of far-right thinking, the Impacts of Successive Drug Legislation Shifts: Qualitative Observations from OreganLaw Enforcement. Oregon introduced exactly this same policy. What does this study suggest happened? This is what the research says:

In 2021, M110 decriminalized possession of controlled substance (PCS), and effectively downgraded certain quantities of PCS from a misdemeanour to a E-violation (i.e., a citation), resulting in a maximum $100 fine or a completed health assessment.

This is exactly sort of policy the ACT government is embarking upon. This is what they found. In its first point, the executive summary says:

As a result of M110, officers have less cause to search, which they note has affected their ability to make arrests for "collateral crimes" that often could accompany a possession crime (e.g., weapons offense, stolen property).

That was the first point. The second point the research indicated was the loss of informants.

According to officers, reclassifying PCS as a violation also negatively impacted their ability to cultivate confidential informants.

Why? Because there's nothing to bargain. Why would you become an informant? It doesn't matter; you're just getting a fine, as Senator Cash said, that's less than a parking fine. Why would you be an informant? So what does that do? That protects the gangs, the organised criminals, who are importing the prescribed substances into the ACT. The third theme, decreases in proactive policing, says:

Many officers noted that the state's lack of interest in drug crimes has promoted the decrease in proactivity. The shifting of roles from proactive to more reactive, response-based policing, is perceived to be having a negative impact on officer morale and motivation.

Why would you be a police officer in that environment? The problem for this chamber is that it is the Australian Federal Police through their community service arm who have the obligation to actually enforce these laws. These laws are inextricably linked to the Australian Federal Police, which is created by statute by this parliament.

Theme 4 is the perceived lack of accountability. It states:

The most common theme officers discuss is a perception of lack of accountability for defendants and individuals in possession of drugs …

Why get help? Nothing is going to force you to get help. It's all carrot and no stick. Why get help?

Theme 5 is hesitancy to issue citations. It states:

Although there was variability, most of the officers in jurisdictions we talked to commented that they had given out few or no … citations.

That's under the Oregon law. Why would you bother? Why would you bother doing the paperwork? That is what is happening in Oregon—exhibit A.

What's happening in San Francisco? Let's read some of the articles. It's the San Francisco model that the Labor-Greens government in the ACT wants to import to Canberra. The 'City by the bottom' summer 2023 article states:

People from all districts have lost faith in San Francisco's governance. A 2023 … Research survey found that the majority of San Franciscans (57 percent) have an unfavorable view of the mayor, and 73 percent believe that the city is on the wrong track.

…   …   …

Officials need to listen to what law-abiding citizens want and stop catering to radical groups like the Coalition on Homelessness, which has made it nearly impossible to get people off the street and into shelter. The city needs to provide people suffering from mental illness and addiction with real care, not ever more radical harm-reduction methods … No one wants to shop (or work) in stores and malls that are being looted, or to patronize restaurants and bars with outdoor areas filled with human waste—and wasted humans.

That's what's happening in San Francisco. Senator Shoebridge is talking about harm reduction et cetera. This is what is happening on the ground in San Francisco. The article entitled 'The encampment state' states:

This past December, a San Francisco toddler overdosed on fentanyl, after coming into contact with it while playing in a park … "[a]nother kid across the street collected syringe caps and floated them down the stream of dirty gutter water for fun."

That is the sort of dystopian future those sorts of policies lead to. The evidence is there. You only have to look at San Francisco. Go back to your office and put 'San Francisco Tenderloin district' into YouTube and see what comes up. It is an absolute dystopian nightmare.

In the Sacramento Bee an op-ed from a local sheriff and a district Attorney in California talks about the departure of major businesses from San Francisco. It states:

The departure of Nordstrom, Whole Foods and other retailers from San Francisco may not be the most critical data point on this issue, but we believe these events demonstrate that no one, regardless of socioeconomic status, is immune from the quality of life deterioration that our communities are experiencing due to homelessness.

Our once-great cities are being hollowed out.

That is the practical impact of these policies. It states:

Several large Democratic states have low homelessness rates, such as New Jersey, Maryland, Michigan and Illinois.

We believe there is a reason for this: All these states have much stronger hard drug laws than California.

In our opinion, fentanyl, heroin and other hard drug addictions—and the associated mental health crises that these drugs sometimes entail—are the root cause of California's homeless crisis.

That is the practical impact of the implementation of the policies that the ACT government is rolling out. It absolutely astounds me that the ACT government would go down this path. To some extent they have self-government, so to some extent, sure, it's their democratic choice, but it's going to have an impact on all of Australia. The ACT is not island in Australia. It's going to have an impact on everyone in this country, including upon the Australian Federal Police who have the community policing obligation.

There are also a number of other points which are raised in the reference to my committee, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which I chair. Questions were raised with respect to the interaction with Commonwealth law, including the application of ACT laws to other territories, aircraft and seagoing vessels. Those are real issues about the impact these laws will have in relation to aircraft and seagoing vessels. So there are lots of issues in relation to this.

There are many issues. As Senator Cash said, think about the impact on social services. Senator Shoebridge talks about recovery services et cetera as if it's an unlimited pool, but when you adopt this policy what is going to happen in the ACT, and what would happen in any part of Australia, is what has happened overseas—the services cannot keep up. Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, you cannot keep up and all you're doing, all that this sort of approach achieves, is to cause absolute misery to those workers on the frontline—our emergency services workers, our hospital workers and paramedics—who have to deal with the human carnage as a result of these policies. The evidence is there. I'm absolutely astounded that the ACT government would go down this path.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

McCARTHY (—) (): The government opposes this motion. Unlike those opposite, we believe in territory rights and we respect the rights of territorians to determine the laws, policies and programs under which they're governed.

This is a matter for the ACT assembly, a parliament that has been democratically elected by the people of the ACT. We come to this place to debate national matters that concern the Commonwealth of Australia, and of course we take the matter of tackling illicit drugs seriously, but this particular bill was passed through the ACT Legislative Assembly in October 2022. If this was anything other than a stunt, we would have heard about the opposition's concerns a year ago.

This is yet another blatant attempt by the opposition to limit territory rights and interfere with ACT self-government. Even the ACT opposition leader has rejected this motion as a blatant attempt to limit territory rights. The ACT opposition leader, Ms Lee, has said:

The Canberra Liberals will always stand up for territory rights and I am very concerned about any step to diminish that.

  …   …   …

I do not agree with this action taken by the federal Coalition to seek to overturn legislation that was passed by the ACT Assembly.

Honourable Senator:

An honourable senator interjecting—

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Would you like me to repeat that?

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Indigenous Australians) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The ACT opposition leader, Ms Lee, has said:

The Canberra Liberals will always stand up for territory rights and I am very concerned about any step to diminish that.

  …   …   …

I do not agree with this action taken by the federal Coalition to seek to overturn legislation that was passed by the ACT Assembly.

These are important matters for the community, but they are not the responsibility of the federal parliament. If Senator Cash and others are determined to get involved in ACT politics, well, you're very welcome to go down the road and deal directly with the issue in the place where it belongs.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to support incredibly strongly, about as strong as I possibly could, this referral. I've listened to a lot of hyperbole and rhetoric from those opposite, but I've got to say the debate on this absolutely takes the cake. I want to read out what the motion actually says, because there are almost no words, which is actually pretty hard sometimes. I might put it this way: if you've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Those opposite and those on the crossbench are generally the first ones in line to argue transparency and to argue for Senate inquiries so that truth and information can come out. Let's have a look at how this motion actually reads, and then I'd like to deal with some of it in a bit more detail:

That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee … The Australian Capital Territory Government's Drugs of Dependence (Personal Use) Amendment Act 2022, with particular reference to:

(a) operational issues that arise for police;

(b) the potential risks posed to police, ambulance officers and other first responders;

(c) the types and quantities of drugs permitted to be dealt with by the simple drug offence notice scheme;

(d) the interaction with Commonwealth law …

(e) the views of families who have lost loved ones to addiction and overdose …

It is inconceivable to those on this side of the chamber how Labor or the Greens or anybody else in this chamber could possibly argue against an inquiry into those matters. It is not about territory rights. With wall-to-wall Labor governments on mainland Australia, this Senate inquiry is incredibly important because once one Labor government implements legislation like this you can be sure that all other Labor state and territory governments will start to implement this.

My colleague Senator Cash has very articulately said why this is such a bad law. Senator Scarr also talked about the actual experiences in the United States of communities who have implemented similar freedoms from restrictions on drugs. Let's have a look at what law enforcement here in the ACT have said about this change due to come in in two weeks. The Chief Police Officer in the ACT has said—and I'm going to read out word for word what he said, because I want everybody in this place to really understand the implications on police, emergency services and health workers:

We legalised cannabis in 2021, and there was a 20 per cent increase in usage, so it's safe to assume we are going to see an increase in other drug usage, and Canberra already has a fairly strong use of cocaine per head of population. The nation will be watching us—we are the first to go this far.

But, as I've said, they will not be the last government on mainland Australia to do this.

Here in the ACT you will be allowed 1.5 grams, which is 15 hits, which costs about $1,500. Not many users themselves will have that amount of money. This could actually see other crimes. Meth, or ice, as we all know in this place, is highly addictive. The worry is people will go on four- or five-day meth benders, go out on a drive and kill someone. That is a very real threat. The Chief Police Officer also said that last year here in the ACT they had 18 people die—a 300 per cent increase on the rolling average—and most of those people had meth or cannabis in their system.

The Chief Police Officer said he was also worried that the ACT might turn out to be like San Francisco, Portland and Vancouver, where personal use of hard drugs has also been relaxed. Senator Scarr has just given us some detail from inquiries and reports into those areas, and it is truly alarming. The Chief Police Officer here in the ACT had also been over to have a look at those experiences, and he said, 'From what I saw over there in February this year, it is not working.' And not only is it not working; what he saw was not pretty. He said he saw, in the States:

… people smoking crack in the streets, and the cops are turning a blind eye to that usage. Cops are walking around giving people a nudge to make sure they are not dead … A city like San Francisco has entire blocks that are literally no-go zones. Whole neighbourhoods are boarded up with people walking around zombified.

Ahead of the change, he also told a newspaper this week that it would be:

… naive not to think people won't come down, even for a weekend, to get on the coke and not worry about the cops … it's a reality we can't ignore.

The experience in North America demonstrates that his concerns are absolutely valid. He also outlined the possibility that methamphetamine use could result in an increase in the road toll and that violence could increase between organised criminals, including bikie gangs, in a bid to capture a share of a rapidly expanding drug market here in the ACT. He also acknowledged that, to be honest, we just don't know what will happen, but clearly it will not be positive for people in the ACT.

The Federal Police commissioner, Commissioner Kershaw, also made the point in a federal government parliamentary inquiry that it could well lead to narco-tourism:

It's going to mean that organised crime will want to target this community in particular because they can move their product quite easily—

in and out of the Australian Capital Territory—

It just makes it more difficult for us to combat the rise of cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin use. They're not recreational drugs.

We all know it is very rare for police officers to speak out so openly, but Commissioner Kershaw has extensive experience and he has made a call that these drugs are incredibly dangerous for the community.

Let's also have a look at what the Police Federation of Australia chief Scott Weber has said about this legislation. He's also called it an absolute disaster, and he's echoed concerns from the police and community ahead of the legislation coming into effect in two weeks. A couple of weeks ago, Mr Weber told the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement that community, health and police services were not adequately prepared for the change here in the ACT. For all of the huffing and puffing, the moralising and the accusations that we on this side of the parliament don't want to provide mental health support and other supports to people who are addicted to hard and serious drugs—of course we do, and that is one of the main reasons this legislation is so appalling. It will make more people addicted to drugs, it will increase mental health problems and it will decrease law and order. The police have been very clear about that. The Police Federation of Australia chief also said:

It's going to be a drain on resources for not only policing but the community as a whole. The health system is already struggling. We've seen that through COVID. This is just another facet that's going to put more pressure on the—

health system, which under Labor, here in the ACT, is already struggling.

They also made a point about narco-tourism, which has now occurred in the three North American cities that we've talked about. The evidence is very clear. He also talked about what's going to happen to Canberra. In the future:

You don't fly down to Canberra to see the nation's capital for the art gallery and the museums and everything Canberra has to offer; you fly down there—

or drive down the Hume Highway—

for a party, to get on illicit drugs because it's more readily available—

much easier to obtain—

and, if you do get caught with 1.5 grams, you're not going to have a criminal record—

In fact, you'd get less of a fine than if you parked in the wrong place in the Parliamentary Triangle.

For all of these reasons, there is nothing to be afraid of having in having an inquiry into the impacts that this will have on policing, health, mental health programs and families here in the ACT. It is not about territory rights. This is about understanding what impact relaxing these drug laws will have in this instance in this jurisdiction. But mark our words on this side of the chamber: once it comes into effect in the ACT, there will be a conga line of Labor governments, with the support of the Greens, looking to introduce these laws, which will only make our communities less safe and create more mental health problems and more law-and-order problems. It will be much harder for our police—federal and state—to enforce drug laws at the borders. For all these reasons, I would urge all colleagues in this place to support this referral to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee.

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

Less than a year ago, this Senate voted, just based on the voices—it didn't even go to a vote—to repeal the Andrews bill. After a 25-year campaign from the territories to restore our territory rights, the Senate voted unanimously to restore those. Less than a year later, we're seeing Senator Cash trying to renege on that and introduce her own Andrews bill to override the rights of territorians to have their elected legislative assembly make laws for them.

I find this bill also quite disrespectful to the Canberra Liberals. I would love to know if Senator Cash consulted with the ACT Leader of the Opposition, Elizabeth Lee, on this bill before introducing it. Has Senator Cash seen the letter from Ms Lee sent to the President and the opposition asking this chamber to respect territory rights? What's going on here when we have the Canberra Liberals urging their federal colleagues to stay out of the ACT's business and allow Ms Lee to be the Leader of the Opposition in the ACT? We see this federal overreach disregarding what the Canberra Liberals would like and saying: 'We know best. We know better than the people of the ACT.' Even the Australian Federal Police Association have told me that they believe it is an issue for the ACT Legislative Assembly. If Senator Cash has any respect for our democratic system, for Canberrans and for people in the ACT, she will withdraw this motion and withdraw this bill. Senator Cash may say that she just wants a review. Then why has she introduced a bill to invalidate the laws?

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a motion. It's not a bill.

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

Saying, 'We just want to review,' is a misrepresentation of what she is seeking, when she has introduced a bill as well. I would like her today to also rule out any challenge to voluntary assisted dying laws in the Australian Capital Territory. Territorians fought for 25 years to have the Andrews bill repealed. We now have the opportunity to debate and legislate on voluntary assisted dying. I would like Senator Cash and the federal opposition to rule out trying to again reach into the territory's affairs in the future. It seems like this is a precursor to doing just that—to interfering in our democracy here in the ACT. If the federal opposition would like to have a say on ACT matters, it should focus on supporting its own party in the ACT ahead of the 2024 election. That probably starts with listening to what they want to be able to campaign on and allowing Leader of the Opposition Elizabeth Lee to lead her party without the interference of her federal colleagues.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I guess the first thing we should clarify—because there seems to be a complete lack of understanding in this chamber at the moment—is that what Senator Cash proposed is a motion. It's not a bill. It's got nothing to do with territory rights. It's a motion to set up an inquiry. Remember when those opposite were all about transparency? We know that was just all talk before an election, but we have seen Senator Pocock also claim that he wanted transparent government, and the Greens purport to want transparent government. But we know that, given any opportunity to block an inquiry proposed by the coalition, they will team up—team Greens and Pocock with the Labor Party—and oppose any inquiry that might shine a light in the dark places of the policy agenda that they're pushing forward.

These ACT government laws are extremely concerning. They are incredibly concerning laws that will be in effect in less than a fortnight. We know that the ACT government down in London Circuit just want you to believe that these laws aren't uncontroversial—'nothing to see here'—but they really do bring under threat the ability of our kids to grow up in safe environments. They bring into doubt the safety that we all take for granted in walking the streets without concern, worry or fear. It's a feeling that a lot of people overseas and internationally have—that the safety that we have in our streets is something that many nations and many communities would aspire to—yet those in the ACT now seem to be set and intent on a way to make people in Canberra feel less safe in their own city.

I think there is a lack of willingness, particularly from the Labor government, but what should we expect, though? The fact is that they are dismissing this out of hand, with zero regard for those families who have expressed concern, those families that have lost children to drug addiction and those families who have got children battling drug addiction, and the fact is that they have no interest in hearing from those families in Canberra and what impacts this could have on them and the children that they may have who are dealing with addiction or how it makes them feel, having lost children to drug overdoses. But these are the things that the ALP and, of course, the ACT ALP-Greens government are completely blind to.

The ACT government's Drugs of Dependence (Personal Use) Amendment Act 2022 will commence on 28 October, and it was just rushed through the territory Legislative Assembly as a private member's bill to avoid any real scrutiny. I note that Senator Shoebridge, in his contribution, said that the inquiry that had apparently been held by the ACT government showed that there was 100 per cent support from everyone. Everyone thought this was a cracking idea. If we went back and checked the Hansard, we would see he said there was 100 per cent, because I particularly remember Senator Brockman calling out: 'Really—100 per cent? Wow, that's extraordinary.'

So, if they are so confident of this 100 per cent support, why are they afraid of an inquiry? Let these experts come and tell us, after rolling out the red carpet with drug cocktails—ice, heroin, cocaine, speed, acid and other drugs—upon arrival. Obviously, this is the way the Greens do their national conference: roll out the green carpet and hand out the drugs. As an aside, I used to love going out with Senator Heffernan, when it was time for election day, to a polling booth. He used to go and helpfully suggest to those on the booth working for the Greens that he'd help them hand out, at which point he would walk around handing out their how-to-vote cards, suggesting free drugs for everyone. It's funny they used to get a bit upset about that, but it turns out that Bill was pretty much on the money, as he so often was.

But why would our national's capital be so eager to garner the reputation of being Australia's drug capital? Why would they want that as their moniker? This selfish and ill-conceived policy doesn't consider the implications of their drug laws filtering into the adjacent states. I say that as a New South Wales senator. New South Wales police have voiced concerns in the past with cannabis legislation in the ACT. It would set up the drug trade to filter into New South Wales, making New South Wales drug policing all the more difficult.

Despite the ACT government running from scrutiny, we just shouldn't do it in the federal setting.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And it didn't happen. What about the fact it didn't happen

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, perhaps we could have some order at the end of the chamber. The courtesy was granted to Senator Shoebridge to be heard in silence. It would be helpful for him to return the favour.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hughes, please take your seat.

The Acting Dep Uty President:

Order! I've called the chamber to order, Senator Shoebridge. I ask that you remain in silence and give the senator the opportunity to speak in silence, as you were given when you were speaking.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Maybe someone is looking for one of those downers! In two weeks, you'll be able to legally carry it.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It just didn't happen.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Shoebridge, you are now disregarding the order I've given.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Shoebridge, are you finished?

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, Senator Hughes, direct your comments through me, please.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We can see from them, obviously, that they're all going to buddy up together again to ensure that there's no transparency, and I think that that is just a continuation of the appalling behaviour that we have seen from this Labor-Greens-Pocock alliance.

In the past decade there have been inquiries to look at these sorts of legislative issues that come via the territories. In fact, only recently an inquiry was undertaken, at the behest of Senator Pocock, into the management of feral horses in the Australian Alps. He was pretty keen for us to push that one forward. In fact, that was his idea. But, whoa, now it's trampling on Canberrans' rights, the ACT's rights. There is an inquiry into the Commonwealth Games cancellation, and there was one on the need for nationally consistent approaches to alcohol fuelled violence.

It doesn't take much thought power to see that, on its face alone, the ACT is about to unleash something that goes well beyond its borders and, as such, requires national leadership, federal scrutiny and possible intervention. So, to the details: what does this bill actually entail? Among other things, this bill allows a person to carry 1½ grams of ice, 1½ grams of cocaine or a gram of heroin without fear of any criminal conviction or punishment more than a small fine. These aren't recreational drugs we're talking about here. These are highly addictive, life-altering, psychosis-inducing, family-destroying drugs that this government wants to allow people to access without concern. In fact, the ACT government seems to think that to deal with people's addiction and the incarceration that could possibly flow on from that addiction you actually just reduce the punishment, because how could these poor people be punished for being deeply addicted to an illicit substance? That's aside from the fact of personal use, recreational use. People have free will and that must be respected, and they have to live with their choices. But we should provide supports and frameworks to help people break the cycle of drug use and addiction which could lead to imprisonment. And we shouldn't remove in total the carriage of justice because of this. In fact, we need to step up and make sure that we are working with the people who are utilising these substances, instead of risking the release of both the revolting and the criminal. You're enticing young people who are still developing mentally to succumb to peer pressure. As we know, teenagers and young people like to try things. You are now opening up the door to allow them to try drugs without the fear of punishment that would normally be there.

We do know that one gram of heroin is up to five times the average lethal dose. I assume that the ACT government is going to have some sort of warning. I don't know; maybe it could be like on cigarette packets. Their little baggies with their gram of heroin could say it is five servings, five doses, to make sure people know not to take the whole hit at the one time. I assume there'll be a drug use guide going out in the ACT to say that, whilst it may be one gram for personal use, it is potentially five times a fatal dose. Let's hope that these people aren't trying it for the first time and thinking, 'Well, if the ACT government tells me one gram is okay for personal use, it must be okay for me to use the whole whack in one go.' How will we know?

The police are going to be dealing with this. I think the other interesting thing—as we hear a lot of smug and derogatory comments from those at the end of the chamber—

will be what we hear from them when we start to see a spike in criminal activity in the ACT, an increase in crimes like burglary, theft and car break-ins. People who want to have that gram of heroin or 1½ grams of ice for personal use quite often don't have the cash for it just lying around. In opening up the doors and increasing this level of access, we're going to see an increase in the level of crime so that they can access the drugs they can then legally carry around. It will be interesting to hear whether or not those opposite, particularly those who represent people in the ACT, have any concerns when the crime rate goes up. Of course, there will be no causation between their open and free drug policies and increases in crime!

It would be interesting, too, to know what they think the benefit is. What's the upside for them here? Does anyone know what the upside is? We know from examples overseas that there have been nothing but downsides for those communities who have liberalised any of their drug policies. Just to reiterate what Senator Scarr said, I've heard from friends who used to live in San Francisco about the state of the place now. In fact, when you go into a hotel—and there are fewer of them in San Francisco because the tourism market has basically gone—you walk through something to clean the bottom of your shoes like for foot-and-mouth disease. Because there's now so much human faeces on the streets of San Francisco you have to clean your shoes going into hotels. It's absolutely disgraceful. It's heartbreaking. It was such a beautiful city and it's now a complete and utter basket case. It has been driven by Democratic governments over there and their liberal policies around social issues such as drugs.

The AMA in particular—I'm sure one of the 100 per cent that were supportive at the inquiry—said:

1. There is clear medical evidence that methamphetamine, and particularly crystal methamphetamine ('ice') is a very harmful drug at the individual, community and societal levels.

2. 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.

3. Acute methamphetamine psychosis is one of the most damaging health consequences of methamphetamine use. Acutely, it presents a major safety issue for health care staff and the intoxicated patient and his or her family.

Ice induces psychosis, paranoid delusions and hallucinations, severe aggression and violent behaviour. I also hope that those opposite, who are going to team up together to stop this inquiry going forward, don't cry and talk about what happens if a nurse or a doctor is attacked in hospital whilst someone is having an ice psychosis episode whilst walking around carrying their 1½ grams of ice without any impact whatsoever.

It is absolutely disgraceful the contempt that is being demonstrated towards the police, the ambulance services and the frontline health services, like doctors and nurses in public hospitals. It's all so that you can claim that you are somehow liberalising and supporting recreational drug use. It's just an insult to everybody, and people know it. This is about an inquiry. If there's 100 per cent support then what are they afraid of? Maybe they should welcome the inquiry. One hundred per cent of people are going to turn up and say: 'Yay. It's great. Free drugs for everyone'—Heffo was on the mark. I think that's probably not what people are going to say. People are going to say that there are huge risks here and lots of risks for those I just mentioned—the police, the ambulance officers, the doctors and the nurses at the forefront.

I want to say something to the parents who look at these things in Canberra and really do fear for their children. I have just been accused of being from the 50s—or whatever insult those at the other end of the chamber who are intellectually bereft have come up with. I'm a parent of teenagers. I know many of us have kids. We worry about these things. We don't want our kids to have access to these drugs, particularly these synthetic drugs. They are dangerous and unknown. They have been shown to have lifelong ramifications. They have life-ruining impacts not only for the child, the teenager or young person who takes these drugs but also for their family. There's the total contempt of those opposite, who continue to buddy up with the Greens and David Pocock in their alliance. They show contempt for those families. Shame on you. It's an absolute shame, but then again what else could we expect from this mob?

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For those waiting in the chamber, I'll make only a brief contribution on this matter. I'll take a slightly different approach not in substance or outcome but in terms of the content of my contribution. I think it's really important to dispense with this idea that this is somehow an attack on ACT self-government. We heard that from the Labor government here today. We heard that from Senator David Pocock. I don't think we heard it directly from Senator Shoebridge, but he certainly interjected it. This has got absolutely nothing to do with ACT self-government.

The fact is that we live in a federation, and I think it's fair to say that in this place I'm probably one of the strongest defenders of the federal system of government that we have. I'm a believer in federation. I'm a believer in the idea that the states and the territories have rights and responsibilities. But the rights and responsibilities that flow to a territory are different—they're different in substance and in practical effect—from those that flow to states and are held by states under our Constitution, and that is something that is very important to remember.

The presence of this place in this city is important. We are the federal parliament. We sit as a body within the ACT, the Australian Capital Territory. Not only do we have the responsibility to make sure that what happens within the ACT is of benefit to all Australians; we have an obligation to do that as the senior parliament in this nation. The idea that, because the ACT is self-governing and has a parliament, we now just turn our eyes away from the ACT and pretend that, when we come to this place as the Parliament of Australia, we somehow do not exist within the ACT, with special responsibility for the ACT, is an absolute nonsense. It's a legal nonsense and a complete fiction.

What we're trying to do here today, contrary to some of the words you've heard from those opposite, is not to abrogate any power; it is to hold an inquiry. When this government came into power, it talked a lot about transparency and openness. We certainly hear that rhetoric a lot from the others on the crossbench. The Greens and Senator David Pocock, in particular, often talk about the importance of holding inquiries and transparency. As Senator Hughes quite rightly pointed out, when it suits them they're quite happy to have inquiries on matters that impact territory governance, but, when it doesn't suit them, suddenly it's attacking territory rights. It's somehow abrogating the role of self-government in the ACT. This is just a nonsense. The people making that argument know it's a nonsense when they stand up in this place and make that claim.

This body, the Senate, has constitutional authority to hold an inquiry of this sort and, given the nature of the matters under discussion, I believe we have an obligation to hold an inquiry. The ACT is a special jurisdiction. It is the home of our Defence Force and our intelligence agencies. It is the place which the governance of Australia is, in large degree, managed from. The idea that laws such as these don't have serious implications at the Commonwealth level is just ridiculous. Everyone knows that these laws have potential implications. They have implications for the AFP and for every agency that works in the ACT, including Defence and our security agencies. If anyone doesn't understand that, I think they really should just think about things for five minutes longer than, clearly, they have already.

This is a matter that deserves consideration by the Senate. It's fully within our authority to consider. Doing so does nothing to challenge or abrogate the ideal of self-government in the ACT, and it should be supported by all in this place.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support this motion, mainly because I don't think we have had a serious discussion and political debate about whether hard drugs like ice, meth, cocaine and heroin should be decriminalised in this country. I certainly didn't have on my 2023 bingo card that, by the end of the year, hard drugs in this country would be decriminalised in any state or territory jurisdiction. I can't remember a significant debate about this issue. There has obviously been a debate about injection rooms and a debate about marijuana, and they have been well discussed, but I don't think anybody thought that, within this calendar year, we would somehow have a situation where in our nation's capital—or any jurisdiction, for that matter, in this country—people could have lethal amounts of ice, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines and simply pay the equivalent of a parking fine for it. That is what the ACT government has passed and, if nothing else happens, that is what will be the law in the ACT come the end of this month—in fact, in less than two weeks time, on 28 October.

As other speakers have said, as a parent, I am very concerned about these changes. I have five children. One of your greatest fears as a parent is if any of your children were to succumb to the evil of drug addiction. It is a shocking virus that affects too many in our country. Those hard drugs, in particular, cause so much damage. They cripple people's lives. They destroy people's lives and they destroy the families of those who are touched by these drugs.

Decriminalising in this way somewhat normalises this behaviour, and we should never seek to normalise the use of these kinds of hard drugs, given how devastating they are to people's health and given the impact on the loved ones of people who use these drugs. It needs to be stressed that the changes that the ACT government has put in place mean that somebody who is caught carrying these drugs—and, as I said, they amount to many times the lethal dose of those drugs under this legislation—if you have that small but still lethal amount of those drugs, you will, in effect, pay less than you would if you parked in the wrong place in the ACT. It is less than a parking fine here.

I think it is important to think about how we feel about a parking fine. I've had a parking fine before—I put my hand up—and I have had speeding fines. Yes, I have done the wrong thing—I admit it. But very few of us think that we have actually committed a crime when that happens. We are frustrated with our behaviour and we get disappointed with the fact that we have to pay sometimes large fines and lose points if it is a speeding violation. But it is not seen as criminal activity; it's seen as kind of a human error. While we all, I am sure, strive to not speed or park illegally, there is no real social contagion from the issue. It is not deemed to be something out of the ordinary; everybody pretty much does it at different times. So, if we make a certain activity on a par or, in this case, far less than committing a parking violation, I think we therefore give a certain social licence from the government that acting in this way is not proscribed.

There is more at play here than just whether something is illegal or legal or exactly how much the fine is for it. There is a social stigma here around the use of hard drugs, which I don't think is a bad thing. It probably deters some people from using those drugs because there is such a stigma associated with it. It provides a warning signal, especially to young people and often vulnerable people—at vulnerable times in their life—that maybe they should think twice about resorting to hard drugs, because there is such a social stigma about it, it is a criminal activity and they will potentially face significant penalties.

Keep in mind that very often those penalties are not applied, certainly with softer drugs like marijuana. I don't think it is legal in any jurisdiction yet—not for recreational use—but people don't tend to be arrested for it or put away for it. I still think there is value in having severe penalties in place to create that stigma around hard drugs so fewer Australians succumb to the vile addiction that they present. I think those arguments many Australian parents would agree with. Most would be shocked that the ACT government has decided to do this.

We hear this evening that we have no rights here, that the Commonwealth should not be involved because the ACT Legislative Assembly, as a sovereign democratic body, has chosen to do this and therefore should be allowed to proceed. I think there are a few very important reasons why this case does require a greater degree of oversight from the Commonwealth government. I will go through those reasons but, if nothing else, as a Commonwealth, we have a duty of care to the employees of Commonwealth government agencies that will be affected by these laws and who do not seem to have been consulted or involved in their construction.

The ACT government does not have its own police force. These laws will not be enforced by ACT government employees; they will be enforced the Australian Federal Police, and the Australian Federal Police are employed under Commonwealth legislation. We have heard from others in this debate how the Australian Federal Police are somewhat perplexed by these laws. They are a little confused as to how they will be applied and how they could potentially conflict with Commonwealth laws, and that puts them in a dangerous position. It also potentially exposes them to greater risk because there is obviously a risk that criminals will seek to abuse the situation here in the ACT and expand their evil business models. That will put Australian Federal Police at greater risk in having to deal with such criminals who oftentimes resort to violence. So we have a duty of care here, at the very least, to those employees of the Commonwealth to have the investigation that Senator Cash has brought forward to this place so that we can fully understand what those risks are to those employees. That would seem to make a lot of sense.

There is also here an issue of the reputation of our national capital. We have provided the ACT government with a variety of self-government rights to run services throughout the ACT. I think that is right and proper that they have that self-determination. But the ACT still has a special role within our country. It is our nation's capital, and the Commonwealth government does still reserve certain rights around the capital. It isn't true to say the ACT government can do whatever it likes, even with the absence of Commonwealth legislation. There are various parts of the ACT that remain under the administration of the National Capital Authority and, therefore, under Commonwealth government agencies because it is our nation's capital. This parliament and its surrounds are part of that jurisdiction that remains in Commonwealth hands.

This particular change proposes so great a risk to the reputation of our nation's capital that it is worthy of us to look into these laws that seem to have been rushed through the ACT parliament. We don't want our nation's capital to have the reputation as the nation's drug capital and that is clearly a risk here. Others have quoted the shocking descent that we have seen happen to various American cities that have either decriminalised or are failing to enforce drug laws. I don't think we see anything like that in this country, notwithstanding way too high uses of illicit drugs. But there is a risk that the streets of Canberra will become like the streets of San Francisco. Because this is our national capital, I don't want Australia to suffer that reputational damage unnecessarily, and certainly not without looking at the issue very clearly and in a detailed fashion.

The ACT is not an island, as Senator Scarr said, quite rightly. In fact, it borders many other large population centres in New South Wales—growing centres in Queanbeyan and Jerrabomberra, Yass and Murrumbateman to the north, and any legalisation or decriminalisation of hard drugs here obviously has potential impacts on the communities of those regional New South Wales towns. Those people in those towns have no votes in the ACT Legislative Assembly. They get no votes to elect members of the ACT Legislative Assembly yet they, potentially, and I think quite clearly, face a risk of being impacted by the fallout from these laws. So that's another reason why we should have an investigation here, where representatives of those communities and towns from New South Wales can have their particular concerns put on record about any of the changes in these laws.

The final reason I want to raise is that this appears to be, once again, where the ACT Legislative Assembly have rushed through laws. My understanding is that it was a private member's bill brought forward that led to this—that is, what I think are the most radical drug laws in this country and some of the most radical in the world. Therefore, it presumably did not follow proper cabinet processes that would normally occur for a bill from a government. It seems to have come out of the blue a little bit and been rushed to implementation. It's not clear why the ACT government has put a date of 28 October for its implementation, which is only a matter of weeks after the legislation passed the ACT Legislative Assembly. They're giving very little time for police forces and other agencies affected to respond to any implications.

This is not an isolated example from this particular ACT Legislative Assembly. They've done similar dirty deeds around the Calvary hospital where they rushed through that legislation. There was no specific inquiry into that particular legislation. I think this activist ACT government is putting Canberra's reputation for good governance here in the territory at grave risk. Because it is a unicameralism parliament there, the government is completely in charge of the ACT Legislative Assembly. There is no review body, and I think we, here, in the Senate, should take that issue up as well. Of all the parliamentarians here in Canberra, we, I think, would understand and cherish the need for review of serious and radical legislation, and when we act at our best—

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Queensland.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection, Senator Shoebridge. I completely agree with you about the issue in Queensland as well. I've supported, publicly, many times the creation of the upper house there. And the ACT is not being singled out—we often have Senate inquiries into state government activities. We are still conducting one on the Olympics. In regard to the Queensland government, I remember the Labor Party pursuing the Newman government for many years, through a Senate inquiry here, into their activities. So it's not unusual at all, and, as a member of the Senate, I think good Westminster governance does require the checks and balances of multiple chambers of parliament so that you do not get these radical experiments that can cause so much harm and damage from time to time. So that's another reason I think that we should look into this as the Senate. There is no Senate in the ACT. There has been no proper non-partisan inquiry in their legislative assembly.

Finally, I think if we don't do this, if we wash our hands of this situation, as the government seems inclined to do, any particular fallout from these laws has to be partly the responsibility of this government too. I think the government here are running scared on this issue. None of them are giving fulsome support to the ACT government's changes. I would think it would be political suicide to do so. As I said, if parents in this country understood what was going on here they would revolt right across the country. So they're not giving any fulsome support to it. They're washing their hands, as the nation's parliament, as ultimately the government in charge, in providing a check and balance to territory governments under our Constitution. They're washing their hands of that responsibility and, therefore, if there is a fallout—if there is an increase in drug addiction in the ACT, a breakdown in social standards and behaviours, an increase in risk to our police forces, if that happens in this territory—then some of that blame has to fall at the feet of the Albanese government, who are failing to take their responsibilities seriously under this Constitution. There is nothing wrong with a Commonwealth government checking and overseeing laws of this radical nature passed by a territory. It's how our federation is meant to work. I would hope this motion gets support. It is simply an inquiry to look into these grave risks from these radical laws which could cause so much harm to many Australian families.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be put.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion be put. A division is required. It being after 6.30 pm, the division is deferred until a later date. The debate is adjourned accordingly.