Page 2191 - Week 06 - Thursday, 6 June 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The evidence given to the committee in the course of the inquiry makes it abundantly clear that having an inquiry was worth while. There are some quite substantive issues with this legislation, most of which Mrs Dunne touched upon. I will speak with a different emphasis.
The main issue, from my point of view, is: can the ACT pass legislation that will effectively legalise the personal use and cultivation of a small quantity of cannabis, given commonwealth law? If we can, there are a number of other issues with the implementation of this legislation that the committee has commented on. But the number one issue, the main issue, which I will discuss first is: can the ACT go it alone on cannabis legislation? Is it legal? Can we make it legal somehow, given the commonwealth legislation?
The committee asked the Solicitor-General about this. As a non-legal person, I interpreted his evidence as a definite “don’t know”. Mr Garrisson said:
If I might be so bold as to say that there are many laws that have been drafted over the years that one is confident will withstand legal challenge, and it would be very bold to assert that it will until such time as the challenge occurs, so that all that can be done is anticipate what those challenges might be in terms of ensuring that if the bill is to move forward the provisions are drafted in as careful a way as possible to minimise the prospect that it does not—double negative—amount to a justification or excuse; in other words, to say that it is a justification or excuse.
The Australian Federal Police were much clearer in their views. Ms Smith, who is the President of the Australian Federal Police Association, said:
Over the course of the past few weeks I have had the opportunity to speak to a number of ACT Policing AFPA members about this bill and all are opposed to it.
Mrs Dunne, at a subsequent hearing, asked Assistant Commissioner Johnson:
As commonwealth officers, would you be obliged to charge under commonwealth law because we had abandoned the field?
Assistant Commissioner Johnson replied:
“Obliged” is the wrong word. I think it comes back to discretion. Each constable has their own discretion and is responsible for the decisions they make. I am at pains to say that all our officers are keen to do the bidding of government in terms of achieving policy outcomes, and their use of SCONs and so forth is part of that effort. I am not for a minute suggesting that if this was passed suddenly everybody would be being arrested all over the place under commonwealth law, but police officers have a responsibility to turn their minds to it and I cannot guarantee that, depending on the circumstances of the day or the time, a charge might not be laid under commonwealth law.
The other thing that comes into play is that, because under commonwealth law it remains an offence to possess, whilst a police officer may choose not to take a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video