Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Hansard source

What is proposed here by Senator Cash and the coalition is an extraordinary intervention into the affairs of the Australian Capital Territory government, and it should be rejected on that basis alone. There are some issues of substance here that are raised, and I won't take the artifice of simply asserting that it should be rejected on the basis of an interference in the proper affairs of the ACT; I intend to deal with some of those issues of substance over the course of this short contribution.

I would say at the outset that, at the very least, the threshold for the Commonwealth intervening in the laws of the Australian Capital Territory, or indeed of the Northern Territory, should be very high. It's possible for senators to disagree on how high that threshold should be; in this case, it's a lower threshold for Senator Cash and the coalition than it is for myself and the government. What has invariably happened when these interventions have occurred is that these interventions have occurred when conservative governments have intervened in the affairs of the Australian Capital Territory, and, indeed, the Northern Territory, when they have been motivated by social issues, and issues that go to some social questions. Previously, it has been about end-of-life care in both the ACT and Northern Territory. There have not been interventions in relation to economic policy or the building of bridges or important infrastructure; it has simply been in relation to those issues. I say through you, Deputy President McLachlan, to Senator Cash that it's not possible, in my view, to assert that this does not affect territory rights. The effective cancellation of legislation in the territory does have a chilling effect on the territory's capacity to make laws. It is the bluntest possible intervention into territory rights. The people of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory have been very clear about this principle that self-government in the Australian Capital Territory means that they get to determine their own affairs, within the limits of what is provided for in state, territory and Commonwealth relations. And I do say, while I intend to address some of the issues of substance, this should be rejected on that basis and it must be rejected on that basis.

The truth is the states and territories will make good laws, they will make bad laws, they will make laws that are capable of criticism and laws that are imperfect and it is their right to do that. It is the responsibility of territorians and people of the ACT to argue and contest those propositions. Indeed, if Senator Cash or Senator Cadell or anybody else feels sufficiently moved, they should move to the ACT and perhaps run for the territory assembly. I'm told it is a very fine assembly and they would probably enjoy their participation in that assembly. I can see Senator Cabell's quizzical look but I'm sure he would enjoy it and they would enjoy it too. The truth is, intervening in this way doesn't just have a chilling effect on the capacity of the territory government and the territory assembly to make its own laws, it effectively—I use this word not in its pejorative sense, not to create offence—corrupts the governance of the way that laws are made. It means this place is being invited to interfere in a consistent basis with the affairs of the territory governments. We have enough work to do in this place. We have responsibilities to enact. We believe in territory rights and I think that is why the Leader of the Opposition in the ACT, Ms Lee, has rejected this effort to limit territory rights. She said:

The Canberra Liberals will always stand up for territory rights and I'm very concerned about any step to diminish that. I do not agree with this action taken by the federal coalition to seek to overturn legislation that was passed by the ACT assembly.'

That's the position that she has taken and that the Canberra Liberals have taken. I'm sure they have taken that position for two reasons. I'm certain their experience as ACT politicians means they actually believe in that proposition I also think it is a matter of pragmatic politics for them—the idea that the federal coalition steps in to effectively delete the self-government rights of territorians is a very unpopular position in the Australian Capital Territory.

We do have responsibilities as the Commonwealth government. We have the responsibility, through the AFP and our various agencies, to intercept illicit drugs and their precursors at the border. That is our responsibility. That is the weight of action dealing with organised crime, whether it is the outlaw motorcycle gangs that Senator Cash has referred to, who participate in the transport of illicit drugs and their precursors through our ports and our airports, or whether it is other organised criminal organisations that are a threat not only in terms of illicit drugs but in terms of our national security.

The Commonwealth, in order to get the best possible approach here, must focus on our responsibility here. We are not, at the Commonwealth level, responsible for regulating drug use and prosecuting individual users of drugs or, indeed, offering the health services or the whole matrix of approaches that the state and territory governments do. That is their responsibility. The moment we lose sight of our own responsibility—to deal with organised crime and the borders—and start intervening in the proper responsibilities of the territories and states, we lose the thread of what the governance arrangements are here, and that is more likely than anything else to lead to the undermining of the proper exercise of Commonwealth power here, which is to stop illicit drugs at the border.

Overriding this piece of legislation would also be inconsistent with the National Drug Strategy, which was announced in 2017 and launched by the then coalition government. It's possible to argue, of course, within the parameters of that National Drug Strategy, which is very broad. Pillar 1 goes to harm reduction. Pillars 2 and 3 relate to demand and supply reduction. The ACT government argue that, in their view, the Drugs of Dependence (Personal Use) Amendment Act aligns with those three pillars. That is their position. It is, and will be, the subject of discussion and debate. Every law that gets passage through a state or territory parliament or, indeed, this parliament will be amended. Over time, none of them is immutable. Indeed, I would say that within this area of policy within the framework of the National Drug Strategy, which was launched by—I'm not sure who the Liberal Prime Minister was in 2017. Senator Cash, you might help me here. I think it was possibly Mr Turnbull.