Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3793 ..
MR OSBORNE (continuing):
Members are more than aware that I oppose this Bill on the ground that it is bad policy, in fact appalling policy, but the matters raised by the committee's report are substantive questions about whether this Bill is a good and workable piece of law, not whether it is good policy.
For the benefit of those who are seeking to rush this piece of legislation into our statute books, I will briefly outline the eight points made by the committee's legal adviser. Each of these points must be addressed by the Bill's supporters before , and I emphasise the word "before", the Bill is passed. I look forward to Mr Stanhope hearing the rest of my speech, Mr Speaker, so I will speak a little bit slower while he wanders back to his chair.
The first point that the committee raises, Mr Speaker, is that there is a longstanding principle of constitutional law that the Executive should not dispense with the operation of the law. That is a pretty sound principle, Mr Speaker. I see that Mr Stanhope is still ignoring me over there, but I hope he is listening. The Government should uphold the law. It is well entrenched and goes back to the 1688 Bill of Rights. Even the Government should be aware of this Bill; nor should it be novel to those highly paid whiz kids who penned the Financial Management Act, with its minor oversight of an equally longstanding principle on financial transparency. The committee notes that the principle may be displaced by statute, as is proposed here, but that members might like to think long and hard before they do so.
The report goes on to point out a number of problems with the lack of clarity of the Bill. It says it is not clear what kinds of directions to the Director of Public Prosecutions would be justified in order, and I will quote, "to ensure that drug dependent persons are not deterred by fear of prosecution for an offence from making use of a supervised injecting place". This question is raised by our legal adviser, and I quote:
Might this extend to the protection from prosecution of the drug dependent person in relation to his or her purchase of the drug?, or of the seller of such a drug?
The quote continues:
The point of these questions is that the drug user must obtain their supply of drugs from somewhere, and that is likely to involve an illegal transaction.
Mr Speaker, this is a point that Mr Moore has been at pains to avoid answering. I would have thought it is a fundamental issue and one that must be addressed before this Bill passes into law. I would have thought it was a point that would concern Mr Stanhope, with his legal background. The vast majority of the drugs used in the shooting gallery will have been bought with the proceeds of crime and they will have been bought in an illegal transaction.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .