Page 4257 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 23 October 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
attorney-general to not throw around words of which he does not understand the meaning.
On the second point, the act was drafted with the intention of providing a clear and specific legal defence to an adult who is prosecuted by the commonwealth for possessing small amounts of cannabis. Section 313.1 of the commonwealth Criminal Code provides that the offence in section 308.1(1) does not apply to conduct that is justified or excused by or under a law of the state or territory in which the conduct occurs. Similarly, section 313.2 provides a defence to prosecution under section 308.1(1) where that person was under a mistaken but reasonable belief that the conduct was justified or excused by or under a law of a state or territory. The text of the statute does not require anything else.
This idea that a positive right is required to exercise this defence has a very precarious basis, and it is clear that they had to go looking for something—anything—to fit their narrative. It is simply the view of the conservative commonwealth Attorney-General, and he has sought to make the law fit his view. It is very clear that he is clutching at straws. Let us be very clear: the conservative commonwealth Attorney-General’s word is not gospel. He is not a court, and he certainly lacks conviction in explaining his view. If his grand plan to derail cannabis legalisation is to rely on tax rulings, I suspect he will not do too well in court.
Let me discuss what has been happening in the ACT for the last 20 years. Police have already been utilising ACT law to deal with personal possession of cannabis. Police have been issuing SCONs over the past two decades. This is because that is the way our community has determined it is best to deal with cannabis possession. Last month we decided we wanted to further decriminalise cannabis possession for personal use in the ACT. What is the legal difference between these two situations?
The commonwealth government should direct our police force as to what law to apply. I trust the judgement of police to apply the most appropriate law for the situation. I think it would be good if the Canberra Liberals provided that same level of trust to the police.
It is important that we address the hypocrisy of the Canberra Liberals. If you listen to what they say about cannabis and imply about its users, why do they actually believe in the SCON model? The short answer is that they do not. They are just trying to play some politics. We know what they actually believe. They believe that personal drug use is a moral failure and that its use deserves to be punished.
They say that they support the SCON model, but so did the South Australian Liberals before they quadrupled the possession fines to a maximum of $2,000. There is deterrence and then there is trying to ruin cannabis users financially. When all of the evidence suggests that these attitudes only harm users, it is disgraceful to see Liberals peddling a stronger punitive approach.
The Canberra Liberals just yesterday, in question time, raised concerns about mixed levels of enforcement and officer discretion in establishing the new legal regime. Well, newsflash: officer discretion and mixed levels of enforcement are the hallmarks of a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video