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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As ACT Policing expressly noted:

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

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

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

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

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

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is proposed here by Senator Cash and the coalition is an extraordinary intervention into the affairs of the Australian Capital Territory government, and it should be rejected on that basis alone. There are some issues of substance here that are raised, and I won't take the artifice of simply asserting that it should be rejected on the basis of an interference in the proper affairs of the ACT; I intend to deal with some of those issues of substance over the course of this short contribution.

I would say at the outset that, at the very least, the threshold for the Commonwealth intervening in the laws of the Australian Capital Territory, or indeed of the Northern Territory, should be very high. It's possible for senators to disagree on how high that threshold should be; in this case, it's a lower threshold for Senator Cash and the coalition than it is for myself and the government. What has invariably happened when these interventions have occurred is that these interventions have occurred when conservative governments have intervened in the affairs of the Australian Capital Territory, and, indeed, the Northern Territory, when they have been motivated by social issues, and issues that go to some social questions. Previously, it has been about end-of-life care in both the ACT and Northern Territory. There have not been interventions in relation to economic policy or the building of bridges or important infrastructure; it has simply been in relation to those issues. I say through you, Deputy President McLachlan, to Senator Cash that it's not possible, in my view, to assert that this does not affect territory rights. The effective cancellation of legislation in the territory does have a chilling effect on the territory's capacity to make laws. It is the bluntest possible intervention into territory rights. The people of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory have been very clear about this principle that self-government in the Australian Capital Territory means that they get to determine their own affairs, within the limits of what is provided for in state, territory and Commonwealth relations. And I do say, while I intend to address some of the issues of substance, this should be rejected on that basis and it must be rejected on that basis.

The truth is the states and territories will make good laws, they will make bad laws, they will make laws that are capable of criticism and laws that are imperfect and it is their right to do that. It is the responsibility of territorians and people of the ACT to argue and contest those propositions. Indeed, if Senator Cash or Senator Cadell or anybody else feels sufficiently moved, they should move to the ACT and perhaps run for the territory assembly. I'm told it is a very fine assembly and they would probably enjoy their participation in that assembly. I can see Senator Cabell's quizzical look but I'm sure he would enjoy it and they would enjoy it too. The truth is, intervening in this way doesn't just have a chilling effect on the capacity of the territory government and the territory assembly to make its own laws, it effectively—I use this word not in its pejorative sense, not to create offence—corrupts the governance of the way that laws are made. It means this place is being invited to interfere in a consistent basis with the affairs of the territory governments. We have enough work to do in this place. We have responsibilities to enact. We believe in territory rights and I think that is why the Leader of the Opposition in the ACT, Ms Lee, has rejected this effort to limit territory rights. She said:

The Canberra Liberals will always stand up for territory rights and I'm 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.'

That's the position that she has taken and that the Canberra Liberals have taken. I'm sure they have taken that position for two reasons. I'm certain their experience as ACT politicians means they actually believe in that proposition I also think it is a matter of pragmatic politics for them—the idea that the federal coalition steps in to effectively delete the self-government rights of territorians is a very unpopular position in the Australian Capital Territory.

We do have responsibilities as the Commonwealth government. We have the responsibility, through the AFP and our various agencies, to intercept illicit drugs and their precursors at the border. That is our responsibility. That is the weight of action dealing with organised crime, whether it is the outlaw motorcycle gangs that Senator Cash has referred to, who participate in the transport of illicit drugs and their precursors through our ports and our airports, or whether it is other organised criminal organisations that are a threat not only in terms of illicit drugs but in terms of our national security.

The Commonwealth, in order to get the best possible approach here, must focus on our responsibility here. We are not, at the Commonwealth level, responsible for regulating drug use and prosecuting individual users of drugs or, indeed, offering the health services or the whole matrix of approaches that the state and territory governments do. That is their responsibility. The moment we lose sight of our own responsibility—to deal with organised crime and the borders—and start intervening in the proper responsibilities of the territories and states, we lose the thread of what the governance arrangements are here, and that is more likely than anything else to lead to the undermining of the proper exercise of Commonwealth power here, which is to stop illicit drugs at the border.

Overriding this piece of legislation would also be inconsistent with the National Drug Strategy, which was announced in 2017 and launched by the then coalition government. It's possible to argue, of course, within the parameters of that National Drug Strategy, which is very broad. Pillar 1 goes to harm reduction. Pillars 2 and 3 relate to demand and supply reduction. The ACT government argue that, in their view, the Drugs of Dependence (Personal Use) Amendment Act aligns with those three pillars. That is their position. It is, and will be, the subject of discussion and debate. Every law that gets passage through a state or territory parliament or, indeed, this parliament will be amended. Over time, none of them is immutable. Indeed, I would say that within this area of policy within the framework of the National Drug Strategy, which was launched by—I'm not sure who the Liberal Prime Minister was in 2017. Senator Cash, you might help me here. I think it was possibly Mr Turnbull.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie, you're out of order.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He and the premiers—I suspect it was Mr Turnbull but I'm not sure—announced this policy framework. It is broad and allows the states and territories to make different laws in this area.

There is, of course, no perfect response. That is the truth here. Each approach of each of the states and territories comes with risks, advantages and disadvantages. It involves the intersection of health and social policy and, indeed, the criminal law, and no approach is immune from criticism. I remember well the New South Wales drug summit that occurred in the 1990s and the controversy that accompanied that. I also remember that politicians from each side of the aisle in the New South Wales parliament, despite all of the misgivings and apprehensions, came together. They disagreed and agreed, but they came together in a genuine process. I remember how difficult the process was, particularly as there are very few families in this country that are not touched by these issues. The issues affect families and people in very difficult ways, and they would affect many of the people in this place who have come to this debate. I'm sure that in the Australian Capital Territory assembly those issues would have weighed heavily on the minds of those people who made those decisions. In fact, the National Drug Strategy says that it is best practice for states and territories to implement the strategy in the way that best suits their jurisdiction. On page 16, it says:

Jurisdictional implementation allows for governments to take action relevant to their jurisdiction with a national harm minimisation approach and strategies should reflect    local circumstances and    address emerging issues and drug types. Coordination and collaboration supports jurisdictions to develop better responses and innovations within the national approach that can inform and benefit all jurisdictions by sharing practices and learning.

That is the position, the agreed approach, between a conservative government and the states and territories. Adopting the approach that Senator Cash and her colleagues are asking the parliament for not just flies substantially in the face of that agreed approach between the states and territories and the Commonwealth but fatally undermines it. It undermines the national approach on drugs. It undermines the capacity of the ACT assembly to make laws in a way that it sees fit. It undermines the governance arrangements, where there are alternative approaches.

One approach is to work consistently with the rights and responsibilities of states and territories, to share responsibility and to work together to solve big national challenges. The alternative approach—exemplified by Mr Morrison, of course—was to point fingers, to look for arguments, to sensationalise, to fight and to argue. That is not the approach that this government will take. For our part in the Commonwealth government, we will focus—and Mr Dreyfus and the others who are responsible in this area will focus—on our responsibility, which is about stopping illicit drugs and organised crime at the border.

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

On behalf of the Greens, I indicate our strong opposition to another coalition attack on self-government in the ACT and another highly emotive febrile attack from the shadow Attorney-General when it comes to sensible, evidence based law reform in relation to drug use. The Drugs of Dependence (Personal Use) Amendment Act 2022 passed through the ACT Legislative Assembly after a nine-month-long inquiry. They received dozens and dozens of submissions and hundreds and hundreds of survey responses. The position of the ACT public in those submissions and those survey responses was overwhelming support for the ACT's reforms to decriminalise personal possession of a limited number of illegal drugs—not to legalise it but to decriminalise it—to provide a modest civil penalty if somebody is found in possession of illegal drugs and to permit the police to confiscate the drugs in the circumstances.

They're the laws that are backed in by pretty much every public health advocate and expert. They're the laws that have been backed in by report after report by both the New South Wales coroner and the so-called ice inquiry established by a Liberal premier in New South Wales. They're the laws that were backed in after a nine-month inquiry by the ACT Legislative Assembly which held five days of public hearings. They're the laws that the federal coalition want to overturn based on an extraordinary, anti-factual, deliberately inflammatory and misleading political attack from the coalition. What's fascinating is that the coalition, which, in this case, is being led by the shadow Attorney-General, is obviously hostage to the far right wing of the coalition and the Liberal Party. And part of who they've taken hostage are the poor Liberals in the ACT, who have said, time after time, 'Stop doing this because you keep burning the brand in the ACT.' Those people who might have been open to supporting the coalition in the ACT if they stuck to some kind of fact based, non-Trumpian approach to politics are being completely burnt off. They are once again seeing the federal Liberal Party use this Trumpian-style, evidence-free, angry form of divisive politics to try and tear down self-government in the ACT. And the poor old ACT Liberals in the assembly are saying: 'Please stop! Please stop! But obviously nothing's going to stop the Trumpian rise of the Liberal Party here.

There have even been calls from the leader of the Liberal Party in the ACT who said unambiguously and clearly that they don't want this to happen, that it's an attack on self-government. There's an internal war being played within the Liberal Party, led by the shadow Attorney-General, who has complete disregard not just for the concept of self-government in the ACT not just for the rights of hundreds of thousands of ACT voters to choose their own government and to map their own path, but also complete contempt for her own party who have asked her to stop this. The message coming from the ACT Liberals is: don't do it! But because of this internal culture war in the coalition, the shadow Attorney-General is pressing on regardless.

Let's be clear about what the ACT laws do. They decriminalise; they don't legalise. They follow the evidence. They were adopted by overwhelming support in the ACT Legislative Assembly. They're backed in by the great majority of the public in the ACT. They follow international best practice, such as Portugal, which has decriminalised personal possession of drugs for the past two decades. They mapped forward a pathway that, instead of treating people with addiction problems as criminals and putting them into jail—losing their jobs, hopes and future and driving them down further pathways aimed towards addiction—treat it as a health issue. The ACT Legislative Assembly has backed this by providing millions and millions of additional dollars in drug and alcohol treatment and putting in other safety measures supported by evidence, such as pill testing.

The real reason the coalition in this place is so angry and insistent about this is that they know it's going to work. They know that none of their scaremongering is going to come true, and they know that we're not going to see a rise in drug use in the ACT; we're going to see a diversion of resources away from police and courts and jails in health and addiction services. Every time that happens, Australia becomes a safer place; every time that happens, lives are saved. That's what they're really angry about—that this is actually going to work.

The disrespect for the people of the ACT that is inherent in the Australian Capital Territory Dangerous Drugs Bill is tangible. The Leader of the Greens and the Attorney-General in the ACT Legislative Assembly, Shane Rattenbury, said that the coalition's attempted federal intervention again treats Canberrans as 'second-class citizens'. He went on and he said:

We've seen a constant pattern of paternalism from the Liberal party when it comes to dealing with the ACT. Our citizens have elected their members of parliament in the territory. They deserve to allow those processes to operate.

Well, he's dead-on. He is absolutely dead-on when it comes to that.

I also want to acknowledge the hard work and the principled work of Johnathan Davis, our Greens spokesperson for this in the legislative assembly. He has constantly called out the lies, constantly seen a pathway forward so that the ACT can lead the country in this reform. I wonder if the shadow Attorney-General has been to Portugal and had a look at that jurisdiction. It is a small jurisdiction, surrounded by the EU, in some ways a kind of parallel to the ACT, a small jurisdiction surrounded by New South Wales and the rest of Australia. But, if you go to Portugal and you talk to the reformers and the policymakers in Portugal, which I had the benefit of doing earlier this year, they will tell you two things. They will tell you that, when Portugal decriminalised and moved from police, courts and jails to public health and addiction services, what they saw was a significant reduction of drug use on the streets, particularly in Lisbon. They saw resources going where they were needed. For the last two decades, they say, the sight of public drug-using in Portugal has basically disappeared. There was quite a disturbing level of public drug-taking at the time the reforms came through. The reforms were the way of dealing with that. And, for the last two decades, far from the weirdly unfactual, dystopian future that the coalition paints for the ACT, the lived experience in Portugal has been 180 degrees different. The public drug-taking has radically reduced, the streets are safer, people with addiction problems are having their health concerns treated, they're getting the treatment they need, and there has been no increase in drug use in Portugal—none. In fact, for a series of highly addictive drugs, the drug use has radically reduced in Portugal. That's two decades of lived experience.

Has the shadow Attorney-General gone to Portugal? Did the ACT police go to Portugal? No, they didn't. They went to San Francisco apparently. I don't know if the shadow A-G has been to San Francisco. It may not be her town. But they refer to San Francisco. What do we see in San Francisco? In some suburbs in San Francisco, we see the tragedy of the fentanyl disaster that's sweeping through the United States—a legal drug in the United States, being driven by some of the worst elements of the pharmaceutical industry. It is a legal drug being pumped out en masse by the pharmaceutical industry, which knew about its incredible addictiveness and potent impacts and was allowed to do that by federal regulators in the United States, in an environment where there are no constraints on acquiring what would be a prescription drug in Australia—and, in fact, with big pharmaceutical companies actively out there advertising, promoting and selling fentanyl. What we're seeing in the United States is a tragic failure of their privatised health scheme and their free-market mentality and the worst of big pharma, pumping out a legal product which is destroying communities in San Francisco. Did we hear the truth about what's happening in San Francisco and other places in the United States from the coalition? No, we didn't. We heard it being somehow equated with illegal drug use—use of heroin and methamphetamines.

No, in fact, it's the coalition's mates in the pharmaceutical industry, who donate to the coalition, who are creating that tragedy and disaster in the United States, along with their free-market mentality and their free-market-mentality approach to health care. It's those things that are creating the tragedy on the streets in the United States, not a rationally based, sensible, evidence based set of laws on personal possession of illegal drugs.

But of course, in the Trumpian world of the federal coalition, the truth is the first casualty, isn't it? There are optional facts, alternative facts, that they put forward. This is one of their alternative facts. They look at San Francisco and pretend it's not big-pharma, legal-drug, free-market craziness. It's anti socialised medicine, they'll no doubt tell us next. It's ignoring the truth; it's pretending that that is, in some ways, related to what's happening in the ACT. These are bald-faced lies from the coalition.

So what do we see here? We see another attack on self-government from the coalition because they don't believe that Canberrans and the people of the ACT should be able to map out their own future—largely, because they politically disagree with them. It's appalling to see them do this again. It's appalling to see their disrespect for the people of the ACT.

But we also see this Trumpian, evidence-free, febrile attack on sensible, considered, rational laws that decriminalise personal drug use and divert the resources of the state from police and courts and jails to health and addiction and a public-information campaign, to make the people of the ACT safer, to save kids' lives, to take people off a pathway to addiction and put them into treatment and treat them like our fellow citizens who deserve our support and respect and not like criminals.

Shame on the coalition for bringing this bill. I look forward to seeing it defeated in minutes.

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

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pocock, resume your seat. Senator Cadell, do you have a point of order?

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. Under standing order 194(1), I ask the relevance to the bill that is in front of the chamber, which is entirely different.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pocock, are you responding to the point of order?

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

If I may, Madam Acting Deputy President. This is a bill about drugs. I'm talking about drug policy in Australia.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cadell?

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to that response: he was talking about gambling, lobbying reforms—all sorts of things—and he was not being relevant at all to the private member's bill that is before the chamber.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can't see how Senator Cadell's point of order enlivens a direction on relevance. I think this debate has traversed both drug law reform and state, territory and Commonwealth relations in respect of a number of issues, and it's hard to see how Senator Pocock's speech goes outside those boundaries.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pocock, your remarks are related to the bill and related to territory and federal relations, and those matters are relevant. I'll be listening carefully as you continue your speech.

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

Gee! You just have to mention donations from big tobacco and you strike a nerve with the Nats.

We cannot talk about drug reform in Australia without acknowledging the huge influence that lobbyists have in this country and the lack of appetite to deal with that. We know how much of an issue alcohol and opioids are, but we're not seeing the focus on that. I would urge the major parties: let's have a serious conversation about this.

These matters are serious. Many people have lost loved ones to drugs and alcohol, and right now there will be Australians sitting at the phone wondering whether their loved ones are going to return to them. I think we do a great disservice by trivialising these experiences for the sake of some political theatre and to punch down on the ACT. It's simply not ever good enough to seek to dehumanise someone because they are living with addiction. We've seen what that stigma drives. It means that people don't go and get the support that they need. They feel isolated and they feel shame. Stigma kills, and it's been killing people with addiction for centuries.

Instead of having contrived inquiries singling out the ACT, we could look to restore national coordination and infrastructure and have some very focused discussions on community safety and on the strategies that address supply, demand and harm reduction. I stand ready to have those conversations. But that's not what this debate is about. This debate is singling out the ACT, when we know that this is an issue across the country. As I said, we saw the coalition defund a whole lot of bodies who were tasked with dealing with the very problem that Senator Cash is now so concerned about.

I do hope that we'll have a more serious discussion about drug reform. Clearly, the status quo isn't working. This is an issue in communities. There are families grieving. For many this is urgent. I strongly disagree that this is the way to deal with this, and I believe that Senator Cash's bill should be rejected by the Senate. I would be very open to looking at a way to look at this nationally—to looking at the national issue that this is—so that we can come up with a more coordinated response that will ensure that, when people need the support, they know where to go and there's not as much stigma attached to it, so we're not seeing the awful outcomes that we can all agree we need to avoid.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be now read a second time.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for the debate has now expired. We will move to consideration of government business.