Campbell Newman’s Queensland Takes A Step Backward
Written by enadmin7 on August 9, 2013
On Wednesday night, August 7th 2013, the Queensland parliament under Campbell Newman’s Liberal-National Party passed a selection of amendments to Acts with this rhetorical ideal used for justification, “This is just another step this government is taking to ensure Queensland is the safest state in Australia to raise a child.”
The amendments focus mostly on drugs and graffiti. The amendments to Queensland’s Drugs Misuse Act (1986) raise the penalties for all ‘supplying dangerous drugs‘ offences and state that someone convicted of a drug trafficking crime must serve at least 80% of their sentence.
This is called mandatory minimum sentencing and represents a blurring of the lines between the legislative and judiciary powers.
The purpose of the amendments was outlined in a media release issued that night by the Queensland Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Jarrod Bleijie, which includes draconian new sentencing law for those caught with illicit substances.
“These new laws will ensure the punishment fits the crime and rebalance the scales of justice back in favour of the victim instead of the offender.”
CORRUPTION IN QUEENSLAND:
Nearly 40 years ago in a sleepy part of far north Queensland, a small commune felt the full force of a government exercising its prohibitionary policing force.
A $50,000 raid (worth close to $AUD300,000 in 2012) which included a helicopter, light aircraft and a navy vessel, was made on a small community called Cedar Bay, located between Cairns and Cooktown.
The raid was a sinister embarrassment for the Queensland police and government under the eye of the infamous premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen.
The story goes that local police thought that the community was harbouring a murderer wanted for crimes committed across various countries. Rather than checking their facts or thinking things through, the Cairns Police launched a full-scale raid of the community, ending in the arrest of 12 young people on drug and vagrancy charges. But it also ended with accusations that the police had burned down huts, destroyed clothing, smashed personal belongings and chopped down fruit trees with the public afterward questioning why military-style planning and many resources were expended in an apparently small-time drug raid.
The reign of Bjelke-Petersen came with many controversies, eventually ending in The Fitzgerald Enquiry which found systematic and deep-rooted corruption within the government and police force at the time. Queensland’s Police Commissioner at the time was Ray Whitrod, who has more recently said that the Cedar Bay episode was one of the most traumatic experiences of his life.
“My relationship with Joh at the time was severely strained because he felt he was acting as a perfectly reasonable person who was doing the right thing. I disagreed… I insisted on an inquiry into the affair because I felt that police had acted improperly in destroying dwellings… I knew there had to be something more to the Cedar Bay business than just a drug raid but at the time I was in the dark about it… To my utter frustration, all police who were charged were acquitted – but then it was very difficult to get a conviction against a policeman in those days… But he (Sir Joh) steadfastly believed he was acting in the best interests of the public and probably still does.”
The Fitzgerald Enquiry saw Queensland shift from 33 years of Liberal-National Party rule in the 1989 elections. What caused the mentality among the police force and government that lead to the corruption and the Cedar Bay incident?
“The potential for an incident like that to happen again in Queensland is certainly there. It will be only a matter of time before history repeats itself.”
We hope Mr. Whitrod is wrong.
LISTEN TO THE LAWYERS WHEN IT COMES TO LAW
The current Queensland Government has pushed law and order as priority in the state, with the claim that, “These new laws will ensure the punishment fits the crime and rebalance the scales of justice back in favour of the victim instead of the offender.”
Strongly worded rhetoric is constructed and intended to distract you from the nuance and detail of an issue and this is exactly the game Mr. Bleijie is playing.
The Queensland Law Society submitted a comment on the new Bill noting that the Explanatory Notes for the Bill state:
“In turn, the new scheme should enhance public confidence in the criminal justice system by promoting consistency and transparency in sentencing.”
QLS say, “For years the Society has been concerned that important legislative reforms in this state have been based on a political desire to meet “public opinion” in circumstances where that term has been understood by reference to the media’s construction of the concept.”
Drugs are an easy target for a government that wants to give the impression of being tough on crime.
The way that the drug debate works in Australia is often overly simplistic. Many Australians don’t have the time nor the desire to look beyond the popular tale.
The aggregated term ‘drugs‘, the popular discourse which frames what ‘drugs‘ are, the stereotype of the ‘drug user‘ and the myths and confusion which feed into the drug debate all culminate to form the popular tale, which more closely resembles an ancient culture’s folk tale than a reflection of the real situation.
PROHIBITION IS NONSENSE
The prohibitionist policies which currently control many psychoactive substances have always been of an arbitrary nature and do not reflect any potential of harm to society or individual. Many negatives associated with various substances are either ill-informed or completely fabricated – such as the recent reporting of a certain ‘Bath Salts zombie‘ incident, or the misleading reporting of LSD-caused deaths in Australia.
The harms caused to society and individual by illicit substances are largely due to the prohibitionist policies controlling them.
- Black markets are given a cash cow, which more sinister types can use to fund sinister operations.
- The value of the market is distorted.
- No dispute resolution exists in the market, so disputes are more likely to end in violence.
- Producers and suppliers have little accountability to their consumers and may sell substances dishonestly or indiscriminately.
- Consumers whose preferences for psychoactives differ from those currently legally available are forced to engage with the black market and may receive adulterated or incorrect products.
There’s a myriad of unnecessary problems that arise when policy makers think prohibition is a good option to control a market which has consistent demand.
Mr. Bleijie and the LNP are utilising an exaggerated and fabricated perception of what drugs do to the community in order to scare people and make it seem as if the government is serious about protecting these scared citizens.
HISTORY REPEATS?
The 1976 story is a horrifying example of what happens when people’s perception of their own power and righteousness becomes confused and enlarged. It’s also a good example of what happens when the three arms of government (Judiciary, Legislative, Executive) fall out of balance.
Mandatory minimum sentencing is legislated policy which removes the judiciary’s ability to do its job – which is to judge people fairly and based on the individual case.
“The (Queensland Law) Society’s long-held position is that sentencing should have at its core a system of judicial discretion exercised within the bounds of precedent. This is the most appropriate means by which justice can be attained on a case by case basis.”
The vast majority of those who have alternative preferences for psychoactives are not problematic and are not involved with any other crime other than procuring the psychoactive substance which they prefer.
Nearly all of the popular currently illicit substances have been found to have a lower potential for harm than Australia’s two favourite drugs – alcohol and tobacco. So where is the justification for the absurd mandatory minimum sentencing law and the increase in penalties?
NITTY GRITTY
VIEW the Criminal Law Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012
The first and potentially most concerning change is listed in Part 3 – Amendment of Corrective Services Act 2006.
“182A Parole eligibility date for prisoner serving a term of imprisonment for drug trafficking offence.
(2) The prisoner’s parole eligibility date is the day after the day on which the prisoner has served 80% of the prisoner’s term of imprisonment for the drug trafficking offence.”
Trafficking in a ‘dangerous drug‘ in Queensland is defined under Section 5 of the Drug Misuse Act (1986), with substances and quantities defined as a ‘dangerous drug‘ listed under Schedule 1 and 2 of the Drug Misuse Regulation (1987).
It is considered trafficking in a Schedule 1 dangerous drug if the accused has more than 200 grams of either cocaine, heroin, amphetamine, LSD, methylamphetamine and MDMA.
Trafficking in a Schedule 2 dangerous drug has occurred if the accused has more than two grams for most listed substances, although it is notable that it is considered trafficking in psilocybin if the accused has 0.1 grams of the substance.
I wonder if this would be measured by weight of the mushroom itself, rather than the extracted active compound?
The second concerning change is in Part 6 – Clause 38 – Amendment of s 6 (Supplying dangerous drugs).
Penalties have increased across the board for supply, with life imprisonment possible for those supplying a dangerous drug to someone under the age of 16 and 25 years imprisonment possible for those supplying a dangerous drug to someone over the age of 16.
Article author Nick Wallis will be running for The Australian Sex Party in the Australian federal election for the inner-Melbourne seat of Jagajaga.
Find out more about the Australian Sex Party candidates.
Find out more about the Australian Sex Party policies.
Narelle Lees On October 25, 2013 at 05:40
Well said! Best article i’ve read in years! Unfortunatly for everyone, you’ve confirmed my worst fears about the conter-productivness this approch has on society…… All in the name of a “Safer” community!