Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I worry a lot about these sorts of matters, illicit drugs and the abuse of legal drugs. It is a major problem now in society. As we know, all around the country there are problems with drugs in our electorates, towns and suburbs. Anywhere, really. It is a great tragedy.

My views are formed by a background of a couple of years in the Federal Police. The member for Forrest mentioned Parcel Post. When I was in the Federal Police 'parcels post' was the reference for part of the drugs squad. It was a common occurrence that Customs made a call to the Federal Police and we ended up going out and looking at what they had found. This is on the public record. They had taken possession of the findings as exhibits. Then there would be the follow-up investigation.

I saw enough to maintain my lifelong view that these sorts of drugs are completely wrong. I have never smoked cannabis or had anything to do with such drugs and never well. I know this is not an opinion held by everybody in this place, but I really do believe that we must continue the fight—the war—against drugs for as long as it takes. If that is generations, then that is generations. If we never win, then we never win. But we should always fight and fight with a determination to win.

Acquiescing and pursuing nothing but a harm-reduction policy is a mistake that will betray future generations. We have to be very careful about mainstreaming illicit drugs or the abuse of legal drugs. We have to be very careful about suggesting in our language or actions that it is okay or not so bad to use illegal drugs or abuse legal drugs. Right now, all the way around this country, there are people who are buoyed and supported by the fact that there are laws that make what I talk of illegal. When pressure is being put on them in schools or other places to buy some or try some, the fact that they are illegal allows them to say very easily—and to be socially acceptable—'No, it is not legal. I will not be involved in it.'

Imagine what it would be like if these were suddenly legalised and it were said, 'We cannot beat illicit drugs so we must just try to minimise the harm.' We would mainstream those problems and weaken the support for people trying to do the right thing. That could be at schools, sporting clubs or anywhere else. It could be steroids, psychoactive substances or anything like that.

The government's proposal will pass through the House hopefully today. We often think about these things. People have already said that these new psychoactive substances are drugs that mimic illicit drugs, particularly cannabis and ecstasy. That has already been said by a lot of people. When we look at the terminologies 'legal high', 'soft drugs' and 'legalisation' we must be very careful. We must act exactly like this bill suggests so that we can combat that and provide the supports, disincentives, for anyone involved.

Of course, it is not just a problem here. Some five years ago, the Irish decided that they needed to act in a similar way. As a result the Garda, the police, found that after those laws came into effect the 120 'head shops' around Dublin, which sold drugs such as these new psychoactive substances in all their various forms, almost disappeared because of the actions of the police, backed up by these good laws. In the last month or so, there have been reports that the UK as a whole is pursuing the same sorts of laws that we are discussing today.

There is nothing soft about this; there is nothing harmless about these drugs. In the last three years, some 140 people have died in connection with the psychoactive substances that we are talking about. Russia also has a problem, and I note that a report in early October said that Russian authorities have linked a batch of these manufactured drugs, actually bought online, to the deaths of at least 13 people and the poisoning of another 300 people in the Siberian city of Surgut and the other city of Kirov. So there is most definitely a threat out there, and the threat is certainly real.

As we have heard through other speeches, up until this legislation passes through this place, the initiative, in many ways, is with the manufacturers. Again, they have that ability to change the substance a little bit so that it is no longer the same substance that was previously prohibited. It is exactly through this bill and the arrangements under part 9.2, 'Psychoactive substances' and 'division 320' of the code that we are going to be able to combat this. Apart from some extra definitions, I certainly appreciate the offence of importation being created, with that five-year prison term and 300 penalty points. There are exclusions; substances will not include food, tobacco products, other goods under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 et cetera.

The other part that I am particularly drawn to, as well, is that it is not just a matter of the imported substance or products, as you might call them, just being the psychoactive substances; if they purport to be, or suggest that they are, a legal alternative for existing drugs then there will also be an offence and that carries a two-year jail term. I think that that is a particularly good move. Again, I say that I applaud the bill and the changes that it will enact by ensuring that an effective application of offences applies. Together with the cooperative framework by states and territories with plans to cover the health, law enforcement and education initiatives, the plan for combatting this scourge is well commenced.

Of course, the bill is not just about psychoactive substances. I also would speak briefly about changes to gun laws to provide for tougher penalties for crimes involving guns. As we know, around 25 per cent of murders in Australia involve the use of firearms. So it is always an important thing. As a previous speaker reported, since Prime Minister Howard upgraded the gun laws in Australia great progress has been made. The ability of criminals to avoid the harsher penalties of trafficking guns by breaking weapons down into component parts is a loophole that we should be very happy to address through this bill today.

I would also speak on matters regarding the international transfer of prisoners scheme. This is an acknowledgement that there is hope for the rehabilitation of prisoners and a hope that they can be reintegrated into society. This is the case for Australians serving periods of imprisonment here and overseas. Obviously the sentence imposed by the sentencing country must be taken into consideration in the prisoner's home country and preserved. It is an interesting point. A lot is said about rehabilitation of prisoners. I live with the hope and wish that prisoners can be rehabilitated through the right programs within prisons. I call it a hope, and, hopefully, through these changes to the International Transfer of Prisoners Act 1997, that hope can be moved to reality.

I remember some years ago I had the opportunity of speaking to the superintendent of Karnet prison, in Western Australia, which is a lower security prison for those that are passing through and will be released in the not-too-distant future. It is not high security, maximum security or even medium security; it is a low-security prison. At that time, I had had quite a bit of contact with prisoners through my job that I was doing at the time. I said to him, 'What sort of prisoners do you actually get rehabilitated?' because it was always a question that I was wondering about, because it seemed so often that the media reports—as accurate as they are—would say someone has reoffended and is back in jail and that some of the worst crimes are being committed by people that have been released recently. So I asked an expert, 'Who is normally rehabilitated?' Disturbingly, the only group that he said to me was murderers; the only group that can be rehabilitated

I asked him: 'Surely you don't mean serial murderers,' and, of course, he said, 'No, not serial murderers.' But mostly, in that crime, it is a crime of passion, a mistake at the time—a grievous, terrible, tragic mistake, there is no doubt. But at that point there is a one-off, there is hope that they can learn their lesson—after a long period of imprisonment. I said, 'What about people involved with drugs?' and he said, 'No. They always reoffend.' Again, that is his opinion through his experience. I said, 'What about child molesters?' and he said, again, that they have a history of reoffending. We went through a number of different areas and it just seemed like again and again what hope there is is, I think, a little bit on the wishful side.

But, in any case, we live in hope that the right programs can see the person rehabilitated and, through changes that are envisaged in this bill, that those Australians overseas and those of other countries that are imprisoned here can be rehabilitated and sent back to their country to serve the remaining part of their sentence. Yes, we live in hope there. In conclusion, I looked through this bill and the aspects of it and it is significant compared to so much of what we see come through here. I see that there is everything to be supported here. It is a good way forward. The fight against drugs must be continued, and that is at the forefront of this bill. The other measures that make it up are well and truly worthy of our support. So, in final conclusion, I completely endorse the substance of this bill and I look forward to it passing at the first available opportunity.

See this speech in context