Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3794 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

Now, the question is: How far is the suspension of the law to extend to give peace of mind to the people who want to use this facility? Should it extend to the transactions, so that people may feel comfortable buying the drug? Should it extend to the dealer, so that no-one involved in breaking the law on selling illicit drugs feels under too much stress? Mr Speaker, should the suspension of the law extend into every Canberra home, so that users who break into those homes and steal people's property cannot be prosecuted if they genuinely intended to use the proceeds of that crime to buy drugs to use in the government-owned and sanctioned shooting gallery? Mr Speaker, this might sound like a joke but, tragically, as our legal adviser has identified, it is not. These are real problems caused by the suspension of the law.

The question is how far the suspension of the law should extend, and it is a question that this Bill, and the Minister who presented it, have patently, and I believe deliberately, failed to answer. The Minister has not answered these questions because he has no answers for them. I should say that I cannot believe the Minister is unaware of these problems. If he is not, then the Parliamentary Counsel has failed him miserably. If the Minister knows of these problems and is glossing over them or dismissing them as trivial, then that is an extraordinary abdication of his responsibility to the Assembly and to the community.

I might also add that yesterday the Director of Public Prosecutions, Richard Refshauge, the man who is expected to deal with this legislation on a daily basis for the next two years, stated at a Justice Committee public hearing that this aspect of the Bill, as he put it, "had major problems".

The committee's report also points out that this Bill's definition of a drug dependent person is limited and may not pick up many who want to use the facility. Once again, this Bill abjectly fails to say how, and when, it is to be ascertained whether a particular person is drug dependent.

The fourth point the committee addresses has been raised by the Australian Federal Police Association in the public debate about this Bill, and predictably dismissed by Mr Moore. There is no doubt that police officers have discretion in relation to their common law and statutory powers to arrest and charge people. The committee questions how this Bill can be adjusted to meet the duties and functions of a member of the police force. The committee would also like to see some clarification of how the Attorney-General gives directions to the DPP not to prosecute and how long those directions remain in force.

A further point which has been noted is that the interrelationship between sections 5 and 8 of the Bill limits the power of the Attorney-General to direct the DPP once an injecting place has been established.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .