The ability of Prime Minister Rudd and his Government to “talk tough” has never been in question.  It’s the one thing Labor actually do well.

Behind this graffiti lurks the soul of a tortured artist.

Remember that first heady year in office when they declared a war on virtually everything – from childhood obesity and whaling, to banker’s salaries, unemployment and even the global financial crisis itself?
Conveniently, the rhetoric has never had to bear resemblance to reality. 

Julia Gillard talked tough during her faux stoush with the Unions, while at the same time delivering them unprecedented power and access in the workplace.

Wayne Swan solemnly warned of a “tough budget for tough times” before he delivered one of the biggest spending budgets in our nation’s history.

Kevin Rudd seriously claimed his changes to border security were “tough”, while at the same time creating a situation where the people smugglers are clearly back in business with a record number of illegal boats bobbing in Australian waters.

Heck, the rhetoric can even swing a full 360 degrees to suit the mood – declaring oneself an economic conservative one year, and writing a long treatise on the evils of capitalism the next. 

No problem. Whatever suits perceived changes in the tide of public opinion. Whatever gets airplay.  Or whatever suits as a distraction from other government failures.

The Prime Minister is currently “spinning” in India, where, just a few weeks back, Julia Gillard spent five days trying to reassure worried Indian families that Australia was a safe place, following violent incidents involving Indian students studying in Australia. 

Ms Gillard declared that the Australian Government was tough on crime, adding: “We have zero tolerance towards any violence towards Indian students, any violence at all in our country.”

If only that was the case. 

Just this week, in the Annual Report of the Office of Public Prosecutions, the Senior Prosecutor in Victoria Jeremy Rapke QC, accused the State’s judges of lenient sentencing, particularly in drug cases.  In so many cases, these Judges have been appointed by Ms Gillard’s Labor colleagues.

Rapke rightly pointed out that the penalties imposed by Courts in drug cases continue to be inadequate having regard to the insidious effect drugs have on society and said that sentences should reflect “the huge public disquiet about the prevalence of drugs”.

The link between illicit drug use and crime is well established and is described as “mutually reinforcing”.  So if the Labor Government is tough on crime, as Minister Gillard declared, there’s a clear imperative that it also be tough on drugs.

This is where Labor’s rhetoric once again diverges from reality. Despite declaring a pre-election “war on drugs” in 2007, the Rudd Government has largely abandoned the “Tough on Drugs” initiative that was so successful under the Howard Government.

Funding has been cut for both the Tough on Drugs initiative and the Customs and border protection services that so effectively prevented tonnes of dangerous drugs from being imported and getting to our streets.
At the Annual UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna in March this year, our “tough” Government actually protested that the term “harm reduction” had been pointedly excluded from a political declaration – effectively betraying Labor’s real “soft on drugs” approach and putting us at odds with our traditional ally, the US.

When it comes to being “tough on crime”, Labor’s own policy platform also betrays them, with Chapter 7 declaring “Labor will promote the principles of restorative justice as a just and effective way to be tough on crime.” 

Restorative justice?  What exactly is that?  A core principle in restorative justice is to “balance offender needs, victim needs and the needs of the community as well” (Bazemore and Umbreict 1995).

Note the “offenders needs” are pretty high up on that list.  And that’s the sticking point.

At its best, restorative justice gives victims of crime a voice. That’s a good thing. For first offences and petty crimes it is a method of dispute resolution that can be effective if both parties enter into the process with good will.

But more and more often the principle is being applied to serious criminal behaviour. 

For judges who philosophically support restorative justice that often means keeping an offender out of jail wherever possible…the theory being that they are unable to “make amends” if confined in prison. 

This is an approach pretty much at odds with the “do the crime, do the time” deterrent to criminal behaviour which has long underpinned the system and reflects the sentiment of most of the Australian community.

But leniency and the philosophical belief that “offender needs” must be considered in sentencing mean we continue to see many cases where the time simply does not fit the crime.  Nor does it reflect community standards and expectations. 

Many Judges, like the Labor Party itself, see the principles of restorative justice as the most “just and effective” approach.  That’s certainly debatable – and I don’t have the space in this column to go into all the pros and cons.  But one thing restorative justice couldn’t be described as is “tough”.

So how can Labor claim to be tough on crime when their party platform says the opposite?  Moreover, and perhaps more significantly given our proud history of judicial independence, Labor are appointing more and more judges who conveniently share Labor’s “go soft” beliefs.

The Victorian State Attorney General Rob Hulls is a case in point. His appointments now make up half the State’s judiciary – among them two “Lawyers for Labor”, a former Labor candidate, and four senior officials from the left-leaning “Liberty Victoria”, along with many other “activist” Judges. 

Without commenting on their individual qualifications, I do question whether their collective views are representative of mainstream values.  I wonder if the balance is skewed.

As a Barrister myself, I believe it’s important for the judiciary to maintain the confidence of the public by broadly reflecting the community’s concept of “justice”.

As outlined earlier, the Senior public prosecutor in Victoria also seems to think this is important.

As evidenced in some of his appointments, the Labor State Attorney General clearly does not.

Meanwhile, half a world away, our tough talking Labor Prime Minister continues to declare his Government is “tough on crime”. 

Plenty of feel-good rhetoric, but reality will inevitably bite.

45 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • dude says:

      08:23am | 13/11/09

      Now if only we had a society that is tough on the qualifications for being a politician. Then we wouldn’t have to put up with the likes of Sophie writing this sort of rubbish. Surely, we can do better than this waste of space. The coalition is littered with no talent wannabes. Please! let’s introduce some sort of commonsense IQ test to save us the pain of reading this sort of crap from a so called representative. Thank god she’s not my mine, what an embarrassment for her electorate and party.

    • Swampy says:

      08:44am | 13/11/09

      The problem with being tough on drugs is that the tougher you are the more crime & black markets flourish. What we need is genuine education on drugs and their harmful effects targetted at youth to prevent the uptake in the first place & reduce demand for these substances. Without demand black markets will crumble & drug related crime will disappear. If a “tough on drugs” approach is unsuccessful in keeping drugs out of prisons how can this approach hope to keep them out of the broader community?

    • jack says:

      08:56am | 13/11/09

      Jack
      Dude you beat me to the punch, I could not have said it better thank god she is not in my electorate

    • iansand says:

      08:58am | 13/11/09

      Increasing sentences does nothing to reduce crime.  This crap shows how devoid of imagination our political class is.

      The only good thing about increasing sentences is that it is cheap as chips to amend legislation.  That allows those who we permit to govern us to go big on rhetoric without actually achieving anything.  But who cares - Alan Jones approves.

    • SM says:

      09:00am | 13/11/09

      If they are indeed not being “tough on drigs” that’s a good thing, because being “tough on drugs” achieves nothing.  Drugs of all types are readily available, and easily accessible.  Being “tough on drugs” is an absurd waste of resources.  Governments only spruik the phrase to curry favour with mums and dads.  It’s like a lot of phrases governments use.  The words sound good, but even the governments themselves know that that’s about it. Mums and dads might sit at home and think “I’m glad they’re being tough on drugs”. To people who use drugs, and people who sell drugs, the phrase is irrelevant

    • Dan says:

      09:20am | 13/11/09

      “effectively betraying Labor’s real “soft on drugs” approach and putting us at odds with our traditional ally, the US.” Good! The US’s approach to drugs is disgusting and completely counter-productive. I’m happy Labor has a ‘soft on drugs’ approach (as far as I’m concerned drugs should be legalised) and I’m delighted that we differ with the US on this. Contrary to what Mirabella thinks, the US is not perfect (I remember she once said that the US doesn’t torture because it’s illegal there, even though they simply wouldn’t define it as torture!) and we have no obligation to follow their lead on ever issue, simply because they are our ‘traditional ally.’ We have a mind of our own, and Mirabella’s ‘do whatever the US does’ approach saw us go to Iraq and betray at least two of our citizens. Thank goodness the Liberals and Mirabella are no longer in power.

      Oh, and does Mirabella realise that being ‘tough’ on crime is not the same as being intelligent regarding crime. Iansand is right; reducing sentencing is worthless. Idiots like Mirabella and Jones might like it, but at least the governments are too smart to fall for that nonsence. I agree with Dude and Jack; Mirabella is an embarassment; an utter joke. She doesn’t deserve to be in office. What absolute rubbish.

    • Glenn says:

      09:59am | 13/11/09

      Let me say in 2045 when people look back in history they will have so little respect for our current generation of australians who have voted for a terrible government who have set us on a downward spiral.

    • What says:

      10:00am | 13/11/09

      Remember that time your old boss declared war on an innocent state, just to appease his best bud in the US?

    • Leonid says:

      10:01am | 13/11/09

      It’s good to hear such calm common sense from Mirabella about the corruption that has allowed the rights of criminals to become more important than the right of ordinary people to peaceful enjoyment of our lives.

      It’s not hard to see where dude and jack above are coming from - they sound like the kind of humourless Greens who seek the destruction of our liberal democratic society so they can replace it with their version of a Stalinist Utopia.

      The government saying ad nauseum “unapologetically, we are tough in the war on. . . (insert this weeks issue)” and then doing less than nothing, does not give people any confidence about the prospect for future policy outcomes.

    • RGG says:

      10:10am | 13/11/09

      “tough on crime” is another way of saying “soft in logic”. Statistics clearly demonstrate that countries which are “soft on crime” actually have reduced recidivism and offence rates. Compare this directly to countries which are “tough on crime” (and in the extreme case, retain the death penalty) and the difference is amazing.

      Just because your caveman urges to see someone punished aren’t being satisfied doesn’t mean the system doesn’t work. People are quick to denounce the expert reports on these things, but they seem to forget that the expert reports are based on demonstrated reason and logic whereas their arguments are rooted in nothing more than a primal desire for retribution.

    • Maverik says:

      10:12am | 13/11/09

      Wow, six comments and six attacks on poor Sophie for stating the bleeding obvious.

      While you six hippies and drug users may support the Greens approach with legalisation and reduced penalties for supply and possession, the reality is most people in society completely disagree with you.

      Pack your woven hemp bags and move back to Nimbin the lot of you.

    • Jasper says:

      10:17am | 13/11/09

      The long term effects of the “tough on crime” & “war on drugs” policies are all for us to see: drugs are more widespread in their use, more potent and, in one or two cases, cheaper. There is a wedge between the some communities and our police that is dangerous to effective policing as more regular Australians have something to hide in their stash. People from the most marginalised areas of our society are using the only way they see out and ending up on SE Asian death rows for being mules while those organising the international traffic are largely unmolested.

      The whole raft of policies that have been adapted by various countries over the years, probably starting with the British opium wars, have been absurd in the extreme and have achieved exactly the opposite of the intention.

      Or maybe that’s the point, as long as there is a drugs “problem” in our society politicians have an issue they can appear hard and resolved on without the pressure to actually achieve anything.

    • RT says:

      10:20am | 13/11/09

      iansand: I’d go further:  just locking ‘em up can increase crime. Jails are a school for criminals, a network agency. SM is right too. The war on drugs has been lost. Every time the authorities have a bit of success stopping, say, heroin imports, the economics takes over. Heroin drought=higher prices=better profits for suppliers=drought over. That’s been the cycle for decades, with no end in sight.

      ‘Tough on crime’  talk from politicians is not a set of effective measures, just a bit of spin to appeal to the redneck vote.

    • AFR says:

      10:25am | 13/11/09

      We should have legalised drugs long ago. Imagine how good life would be with significantly less crime, and more tax revenue to fund public goods etc. Sounds good to me.

    • monkeytypist says:

      11:00am | 13/11/09

      What on earth?  What does violence against Indian students have to do with drug crime sentencing (a state issue primarily)?  Is Sophie assuming they’re all involved in the drugs trade?

      And in any case, how are legislators responsible for the exercise by judges of sentencing discretion?  Isn’t that the whole point of having judges?

      What would be far more convincing would be the helpful statistics that indicated that higher sentences for drug offences are actually reducing drug use in the community.  I can’t see them anywhere in the post?

    • NCG says:

      11:13am | 13/11/09

      RT: Agree jails are just pseudo universities for professional criminals, not sure on the solution, prisoner battalion in the armed forces or re-introduce convict labour perhaps? The latter certainly worked for the foundation of this country, the French foreign legion is a good example of the former.

      As for the heroin drought = higher prices = better return, I think we should take the Thailand option; a bullet through the brain stem of a dealer, problem solved. These people get extremely wealthy from the suffering addiction of there clientele, who only go on to perpetrate further crimes in the community to pay for the next fix. If you want to send the message your tough on crime, I can’t see a better platform.

    • Moddox says:

      11:19am | 13/11/09

      Gee Maverik, that is a real intelligent assessment you have made there. Simply calling people who support drug law reform “hippies”  who should move back to Nimbin really says a lot more about yourself than the people who you so poorly attempt to insult. I think that if you have a look you will find that there is a bipartisan group of MP’s and Senators in Parliament who support law reform in relation to soft drugs. Who do you think first decriminalised marijuana in the ACT? Answer - the Liberal party, and why? because it was the common sense thing to do and was strongly backed by the ACT police. While I agree that our court system is often way to lenient on criminals who committ serious offences and should continue to deter the use and importation of hard narcotics, bringing in draconian laws to deal with people who committ victimless offences is simply counter-productive. If Sophie is so concerned about the connection between drug use and crime than surley she must call for the total prohibition of alcohol, which any sane person realises is by long and far the most socially destructive drug on the planet. And for the love of god, can we have less articles on this website by Ms Mirabella. There are some really great Liberal members of Parliament who have far more intelligent things to say on this issue, how about giving them a bit of a run?

    • RT says:

      11:41am | 13/11/09

      maverik 10:12am
      RT 10:20am

      Did someone say ‘redneck vote’?

      NCG 11:13am: Bullet through the brain approach as in Thailand? After a while that approach became too much for even the Thais to stomach, and there is no evidence that it stemmed the flow of ‘yaa baa’. It was also one of the things that finished Thaksin. We are better off accepting that suppliers are not the reason for drug ‘problems’, consumers are.

      Moddox 11:19am: sorry, The Punch has a rule. Only deadwood Libs allowed to write here: Andrews, Bronwyn Bishop etc

    • NCG says:

      12:15pm | 13/11/09

      RT: If it was more difficult for consumers to obtain product (due to the lack of suppliers), surely this would reduce the number of consumers long term?
      Granted that supply/demand economics would undoubtedly come into the equation short term; whereby reduced supply would mean higher costs, and potentially higher petty crime. That is a why a two pronged attack needs to be implemented.

      I don’t like to draw the violent approach at this as a first option, rather an education, rehabilitation one for the addicts. However dealers in my view have made the choice to traffic drugs as a business. One that is illegal and has drastic negative effects on the community as a whole. Saying that we should just accept this culture is lazy and irresponsible.

    • Old Clive says:

      12:20pm | 13/11/09

      To think that a lot of good men have died for the liberty that the ALP and its stooges are so happy to surrender under the guise of Polution control makes me shudder. Does anybody really know what the Copenhagen Conference is all about, it has a lot more than tax in its sights. Any treaty signed by our Head of State takes precedence over our constitutional rights on subjects mentioned in that treaty. We need to know what is in that treaty and we need a referendum to change our constitution not a treaty.
      You have been warned.

    • Old Clive says:

      12:22pm | 13/11/09

      What is in the Copenhagen Conference Treaty, can it be repealed if we don’t agree with it at a later stage.

    • AFR says:

      12:29pm | 13/11/09

      NCG: The Thailand option? Thaksin’s war on drugs meant that police were effectively given powers to shoot first and, well, don’t even bother with questions later. The result? Over 3000 dead, no accountability, and I can still guy any drug a iwant with one phone call or by asking a cabbie or bar girl.

    • Grant says:

      12:31pm | 13/11/09

      Almost all types of crime are on the decrease in Australia and the western world.  In fact crime rates have been reducing since, well, since we started keeping any records of crime. 

      Have a real think about crime and how safe you might have been in medieval times or the early wild west or the industrial age.  Corruption, poverty, no social justice, no effective police force or criminal justice system.

      We live in a virtual utopia in Australia, I have never personally been a victim or crime or any of my friends.  This can be attributed to better policing, improved situational crime prevention, education and an increase in societal wealth, general stability and cohesion.

      And, in spite of all the factual information produced that monitor and report on trends in crime and criminal justice (including survey’s that cover non reported crime, before anyone mentions that) all state that crime is going down. 

      There is still the perception that crime is going up, the fear of crime and a genuine perception of personal risk.  New coverage plays a part in this and has a tendency to exaggerate and focus on violent crimes over other minor crimes.

      So I think we’ll just continue what we are doing because it’s working.

    • Mark M Aldridge Independent says:

      12:39pm | 13/11/09

      Tought on crime, and supporting our Indians students….yeah right


      While our government are over in India promising support and action regarding our Indian students and in fact population, very little is being done, the fact is grandstanding is getting in the way of any true action, something we have come to expect.

      Having just recently addressed a group of young Indian born students, who are working hard in the Taxi industry to pay their own way through their education, it can easily be said that they are not only being left to fend for them selves, but support services and any ideal of a fair go, are a long way from fruition.

      While our State and federal leaders promise them a safe environment, these poor guys are being bashed, robbed and intimidated on a daily basis.

      It beggars belief that we expect these guys to play such an important role in our society being thrust into being ambassadors for our state, in regards to the first port of call for our tourism industry, and having to ensure the safe arrival home for our inebriated population, yet we deny them any aspect of a fair go, and work place safety.

      The demand for work place safety like the installation of security screens, has fallen on death ears, yes they can have them, but shouldn’t that be at the expense of the owners of their cabs, not the struggling students, even worse is that we dare expect them to pay for CTV footage should they be robbed or assaulted, considering nothing ever seems to come of complaints lodged?

      The installation of security screens plays a two way role, providing a secure environment for both driver and customer, there are many issues facing these guys, non the less the racial problems that regularly raise their ugly heads, yet the industry as it stands is not about to have a sudden surge of job applications, other than these guys who are willing to work in such a horrible work place environment so as they can fund their own education.

      Other issues that need to be addressed include both the issue of their visa’s and their method of employ, having to be holders of an ABN, and becoming subcontractors in a new country would be hard enough, let alone having no work cover as a direct result, going further their passports clearly commit our government to providing them safe passage and a Fair Go, so where the bloody hell is it?

      Justice and a Fair go, should be applied equally to all that enjoy our great country, whether here on a visa, holidays or as Australian Citizens, the up and coming “Law and Order” Protest Rally at S.A.‘s Parliament House on tje 20th November at 4.00pm will be joined by these suffering taxi drivers, so as to put pressure on our Government to keep the promises already made to these hard working individuals, and rightly so.

      Improved driver training and resources is but only a step in the right direction, a safe work place environment and reasonable access to investigative police services should also be part and parcel of their employ.

      Mark M Aldridge
      Independent Candidate for the Legislative Council

    • hoofman says:

      12:43pm | 13/11/09

      Hey Old Clive, what are you doing still here mate? The RSL club opened hours ago.

    • RT says:

      12:49pm | 13/11/09

      Oh so you wouldn’t shoot them at first sight then, NCG? What a humanitarian. Would long term supply reduction long term achieve reduction in consumers? Don’t know, it hasn’t happened and probably never will. Most of the evidence suggests that if the intoxicant of choice is hard to get, users will find something else. There is always something else.

      Here’s an idea - you don’t like drugs, don’t take ‘em. If others do, consider it their business, not yours. And don’t give us the cobblers about ‘drastic negative effects on society’. Plenty of things that are legal have worse negative effects. Restricting freedom of choice for one thing.

    • Old Clive says:

      12:56pm | 13/11/09

      Well Hoofman, I haven’t been able to find the RSL, because Kevin hasn’t told me where it is, and furthermore I gave up drinking booze 35 years ago as I realised it was making me like a Labor supporter, I realised how important it was to be able to think, it may be too late for you but it may be worth a try, even a small capacity to think will be better than none. P.S. Don’t take this too heart you have a lot of mates.

    • NCG says:

      01:59pm | 13/11/09

      RT: Thanks, I don’t take illicit drugs, love a good whisky though. Born an insulin dependant diabetic, now at 26, you will understand the issue I have with people who recreationally shove needles up there arm, while I’ve been doing it stay alive; 4 times and day for 26 years, comes out a little under 38,000 times thus far.

      Petty crime is a distinct side effect of illicit drug use, and has been proven time and time again. I’ve never heard of burglarises to pay for alcohol or a mortgage for example, but there are volumes of cases for those under the influence of illicit drugs looking to pay for there next fix.
      As a tax payer (and a significant one @ $1.3M last year) it becomes my business and any other person (regardless of there tax bill) who pays for a public health system and other public services that have to look after these people. I am an advocate for freedom of choice, but it has its limits clearly defined by law, drug users and dealers are clearly breaking that law.

    • hoofman says:

      02:05pm | 13/11/09

      35 years is a long time to be still suffering DTs, Old Clive.

    • Zeta says:

      02:28pm | 13/11/09

      ...it had everything except for a ‘THINK OF THE CHILDREN’, which I wasn’t expecting. This must be the Coalition’s plan to crawl back some of those seats they lost in 07, appeal to the suburban classes who ‘don’t want their kids growing up on ice.’ I always imagined wether or not a child grows up on drugs has more to do with parenting than Federal Government intervention but I’m a funny, small Government type in that way. Sophie and her mob aren’t and remain, a disgrace to the very principals of conservatism they claim to purport.

      It’s especially embarrasing for her to stick her unwanted nose into a portfolio that her State colleagues are already doing a fine job of looking after, since, well, it is kind of in the Constitution that it’s a State matter.

      And a cursory look around those States possessed of a Liberal Party not quite imploded around an unstable leader (which is every branch of the Liberal Party except Malcolm’s) reveals a lot of formerly hardline Shadow Police Ministers and Attorneys General getting on the harm minimisation bandwagon, committing to ending the ‘law and order auction’ that curses every election, and deciding that drugs policy needs to be thought out using actual evidence from the last decade, and not the evidence provided by the anti-hemp movement of the 1930s.

      In fact NSW Shadow Attorney General Greg Smith, who is so right wing opus dei asked if they could join him and not the other way around, recently confessed to the Sydney Morning Herald that he would 1. end the law and order auction by refusing to wield tougher sentences as an election ploy and 2. would actually prefer a situation where diversionary programs were used to keep people out of prison for longer.

      As a strange aside, in that same interview, Smith, who is also a former President of the NSW Right to Life movement, also said he would maintain the NSW legal abortion regime. For the Sophie Mirrabella’s of the world, that must be terrifying that someone from her own Party would forget to THINK OF THE CHILDREN like that through an entire interview. But it’s happening everywhere.

      But I could be wrong. If Sophie was just trolling, I give her 5/10.

    • Peter says:

      02:49pm | 13/11/09

      Sophie, the notion that sentencing practice “..must be broadly reflecting the community’s concept of “justice”” is on its face a silly statement.  What exactly is a community’s concept of justice and how is it to be measured.  The tabloids report as if there is a crime wave sweeping the nation.  Wrong.  The figures do not support that.  In some areas there has been a rise, some forms of assault, but in other areas a decline, some property offences and sexual assaults.  What is the most significant is that we are a low crime society, relative to other developed nations. 
      It has been a cornerstone of sentencing law in the 20th century the imprisonment is the last resort.  It has not a function of restorative justice per se.  For some offences the starting and ending point is imprisonment, murder, manslaughter and most forms of rape.  The only issue there is length of sentence.  Why should prison be the starting point. 
      As for the sentencing of the current judiciary in Victoria, there are more prison sentences being handed out and for a longer period on average.  So this notion of soft left judges is just tosh. 
      Finally Sophie was a barriste rfrom 1998 - just before the 2001 poll.  In that time barely got her toes wet in criminal law.  So this notion of speaking as a barrister is at best a stretch. Stick to being a pollie..

    • Patrick says:

      03:03pm | 13/11/09

      Zeta, the problem with the Coalition is that they often cannot reconcile their supposed support for “small government” economically with their tendency to favor social and moral authoritarianism often based around religion.

      If they truly support small government they not only need to get their hands off the running of the economy but also to get their noses out of peoples private lives.

    • iansand says:

      03:43pm | 13/11/09

      Interesting contrast with Zeta’s reference to the views of former barrister Greg Smith and the views former barrister Sophie Mirabella.  I wonder if the difference is that Mr Smith was a former Crown Prosecutor, and Ms Mirabella wasn’t.

    • SM says:

      03:55pm | 13/11/09

      How about Ms Mirabella, and perhaps Ms Osmond and Ms Carnell and also Mr Fielding and Mr Xenophon, how about they consider having either the nerve, the good manners, or the considered responses to come on here after delivering one of their stories and respond to some of the criticisms their stories recieve?  They post the original story, and then disappear. If they want to actually change peoples views, and if they actually have some answers that would set some of the people who post responses straight, then where are they?

    • RT says:

      03:58pm | 13/11/09

      I’ll be patient in explaining something to you that should be obvious, NCG. Sure, addicts carry out crimes to raise the funds to buy drugs. Some become prostitutes.

      Legalise the drugs. Problem, if not solved, vastly reduced.

      The crime and health issues around alcohol are vastly greater than those caused by all the illicit drugs combined. Yet you are a drinker. And, apparently, a hypocrite.

    • AdamC says:

      04:14pm | 13/11/09

      Sophie used an awful lot of characters to say what would have sounded much better as a concise, self-evident sentence, as follows: ‘KRudd and his Labor buddies in the state capitals care as much about reducing crime as they do about enacting productivity-boosting reforms.’ Sophie has the right sentiments, though.

      I see positives with the idea of legalising drugs, mainly to decouple them from the criminal lifestyle. However, such a process would need to be incremental. Until that happens, though, drugs remain very much a part of the criminal lifestyle and should be punished accordingly.

      PS, thanks Patrick for telling us Liberals what we believe. Where would we be without you!

    • Glen says:

      04:18pm | 13/11/09

      I agree with Sophie and couldn’t have said it better myself.  By the way, there are a lot of leftist loonies out today, I thojught they only came out when the moon was full or the pub closed.  They certainly wouldn’t be caught dead in a library or learning reality lessons.

    • NCG says:

      04:22pm | 13/11/09

      RT: I’ll be patient in waiting for your explanation as to how legalising drugs solves the crime problem? People are still going to need to pay for them, legal or not, or do you anticipate the government to supply them free? (Not much of a stretch of the imagination given the methadone project).

      I am a drinker but hardly a hypocrite. Alcohol is a legal drug in this country and I don’t partake in binge drinking sessions (which isn’t illegal either, just unhealthy) or crime while under the influence. I would be a hypocrite if alcohol was an illegal substance, similar to those I can only assume you partake in, given your rigorous defence of the criminals who use and supply them.

      Don’t worry RT, its nearly 5 o’clock and you can head home, have a toke and forget all about this.

    • Zeta says:

      04:32pm | 13/11/09

      @ SM - they go one better, they use their staff to post comments applauding them.

      @ iansand - Precisely. Greg Smith was like, deputy director of public prosecutions if my google-fu is strong. The NSW Coalition also have - a Shadow Police Minister who was a Police Officer, a Shadow Treasurer who was an economist, a Minister for Women who was a Sex Discrimination Commissioner and a Primary Industries Minister who was a farmer.

      Turbull gets a treasurer who was a lawyer, a foreign affairs spokewoman who was a lawyer, a finance spokeman who wasa lawyer and so on and so forth.

      It really shows.

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      04:53pm | 13/11/09

      The reason all the ‘Tough on Drugs’ and ‘Tough on Crime’ strategies haven’t worked is that nobody ever actually ‘gets tough’ on either problem. Ruddbot may well have turned the political fib into an art form, but pollies on every level, from every party and across time have said one thing, then done another - the ‘other’ usually being nothing. Survival for elected representatives in this media-driven world is usually dependant on avoiding blame for anything and, as the only way to avoid doing anything wrong is to avoid doing anything….......

      My own belief is that ‘being tough’ should not simply be handing out bigger penalties (though I do believe our justice system is soft); a far better option is to adopt a real zero tolerance approach to petty crime and bad behaviour. Studies and pilot projects have shown that zero tolerance in the playground, in the pubs and on our streets, if applied consistently and for long enough, DOES reduce serious crime. The thing is, one thing usually leads to another, hence the eight year-old who swears at his teacher and gets away with it may well end up in jail ten years later for assaulting a policeman. It’s a principle that most parents learn - get control of your child when he/she is two and teach them some respect and chances are, you’ll raise a good citizen.

      An example: driving past a school a few days ago, three boys aged around 12 yo sped out of the school gates on their scooters and, while the crossing attendant held up the traffic, proceeded to ride down the centre of the road for 200m or so, while I and a couple of other motorists crawled along behind them. The boys didn’t give a rats about the adults following in their cars, never so much as turning around. We eventually became a crawling queue of six cars, all creeping along while said kids blocked the road. This happened right in front of two female teachers, who didn’t bat an eyelid. Now, if these boys have so little respect for adults at such a young age, just what kind of adults will they become?

    • RT says:

      06:26pm | 13/11/09

      Use your head, NCG. The price of illicit drugs is high BECAUSE they are illicit. The real cost of supply plus reasonable profit would be a fraction of the current cost. The criminal supply industry adds a big premium for risk of arrest and well, because they can.

      You might draw a moral distinction between potentially harmful substances based on whether or not they are legal, but it’s a false distinction. There is no logic behind the legal distinction, and the law itself is a sham. You think: legal = good, illegal = bad. It’s simplistic. Alcohol licensees are morally no better than heroin suppliers.  It’s no wonder that the law is so often disregarded.

      I’m a teetotaller and therefore not a hypocrite unlike you, who pretends to know what substances are good for others while consuming one potentially harmful substance yourself.

    • Worldly Bloke says:

      07:58pm | 13/11/09

      The comments from the lefties are very funny. I used to live in Fitzroy and still own property there. 

      In Fitzroy I’ve spent far too much time picking up syringes from around the outside of the yard, repainting my house after another moron has spraypainted it, cleaning up the remnants of a fire started in the access lane near my fence, and far far too much time ‘negotiating’ with the idiotic council over the size and material I’m allowed to use to replace an aging fence which keeps the junkies and other drug addicted morons out of my property.

      Read the neighborhood watch leaflets and you see the number of break-ins each month. It’s not a safe place to live, and the police don’t seem to care!

      I now live in Singapore, a government that’s actually tough on crime, no drugs and a great place to live. Using the ratan and capital punishment seem to work well here. The only people who complain are the criminals.

      Rob Hulls you are a moron! You’re policies are wrecking Melbourne. The inner city in Melbourne is no place to bring up a child.

      We are reminded of this by our Irish and British friends who have plenty of stories, from holiday trips to Australia, of the junkies and alcho’s littering the streets on any given night.

      To be tough on crime you have to actually punish people who break the law! Though the moronic lefties who have eaten too much organic horse cr@p cover food will disagree, Australia has a lot to learn from countries like Singapore.

      The current policies in Victoria don’t work. GET THE DRUGS OFF THE STREETS!

    • Terry Wright says:

      09:09pm | 13/11/09

      LOL, I have really missed the “Tough on Drugs” banter from the Libs. Oh, they were the days ... Pyney, Howard, Bishop. Now we have Sophie Mirabella to remind us why so many people suffer and die from our draconian drug laws. What I have missed most though is calling someone, “Soft on Drugs”. This is the perfect alarm bell to warn us we have an anti-drug nutter making the rounds.

      Whilst these moral crusaders are busy dishing out false information, lies and more failed strategies, the problem keeps getting worse. The worse it gets, the more they push the same old policies. This certainly raises the question about their intelligence and ability to hold a position of importance. But there’s the catch. If they really believe the propaganda they spin to the public then they are dumb as a hammer but if they are rational thinking adults and know it’s not true, then they are liars. Any guesses?

      Either way, their quest for votes is not just some political stunt but causes absolute carnage to society. The “Tough on Drugs” agenda they push so hard has been responsible for millions of deaths worldwide including tens of thousands in Australia. The “War on Drugs” kills many more people than drug use itself but that doesn’t deter them one little bit. And while people are dying, they just continue to lie in the name of “family values” and a decent society. If this was any other issue, they would face massive criticism and would be shamed out of public view. Drug addiction is a complex medical issue requiring the best minds available but selfish, disgusting individuals like Sophie Mirabella favour treatment via prison. BTW, one third of prisoners are dead by age 45.

      “At the Annual UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna in March this year, our “tough” Government actually protested that the term “harm reduction” had been pointedly excluded from a political declaration – effectively betraying Labor’s real “soft on drugs” approach and putting us at odds with our traditional ally, the US”.

      Says it all really. Amazing that an elected official would criticise Australia and many other countries for supporting Harm Reduction. Is she suggesting that Harm Reduction strategies like needle exchanges, Opiate Maintenance Treatment(OMT) and other safety programs are “Soft on Drugs”? Maybe she should tell that to the families of those who would still be alive if these programs weren’t delayed by her lot.

      Pointing to the US as a country we should respect for drug policy is the ultimate test for Sophie. Let’s see: The land of the free has 5% of the world’s people but a quarter of the world’s prison population. They arrest over 780,000 people every year for cannabis possession alone. A drug conviction exempts you from any federal support including food stamps, student loans, public housing and welfare of any sort. They spend $69 billion dollars a year fighting drugs yet have the highest rate of drug use on the planet. Since the US announced the “War on Drugs”, drug use has risen 10 fold, drugs are cheaper, stronger and easier to get. So which is it Sophie? Are you aware of these facts already or you just didn’t know?

      @NCG. Most drug dealers are users/addicts and not in it for the money ( I’m sorry but TV cop shows are not a good source of reliable information). They could have easily chosen to rob people to fund their addiction but picked a victimless crime instead. Those that do commit crimes would not have to do so if there was no prohibition. Drug use doesn’t cause crime ... drug laws do.

    • Jasper says:

      09:23pm | 13/11/09

      Steve, the zero tolerance experiment in New York, often brought forward as the epitome of the policy, also intersected with a demographic shift brought about by the legalisation of abortion in the US. The full details of the argument are in a book called Freakanomics but the potted version is that many of the potential delinquients were simply not born in the first place.

      NCG: legalising and/or decriminalising reduces the property crime associated with paying for them in several ways: first, those addicted to herion and the like can be diverted to legal supplies, this means the addicts themselves do not resort to burglary to pay for it.

      Secondly, it pulls the rug from under the black market, if organised crime can’t actually make a profit from it then they won’t even been involved. You can see this in reverse with tobacco, as the price has risen in Australia, so has the black market for tobacco.

      Third, the illegality is part of the reason for the relatively high prices, the greater the risks in bringing the drugs into the country or producing them creates a market that is always at subsistance level. The interaction of an (arguebly artificially) limited supply and demand will raise the prices.

      All of this can be seen in action in regards to heroin in Switzerland. They’ve had extraordinary success in cleaning up both property and anti-social crimes associated with addiction since dropping all the tough on drugs nonsense. In addition, both Switerland and Holland have found it is a lot easier to get addicts thinking about the future, i.e. drying out, if they are not obsessing about the source of their next fix. In The Netherlands there is even anecdotal evidence of the “rebellion factor” that acts as an attractant to some teens has been reduced.

      There is an enormous movement of Police chiefs, public prosecutors and other law and order professionals in the US, Mexico, the UK and others who are coming down hard against tough on drugs policies as being counter-productive and producing the exact opposite of the stated aims.

      The British organisation Transform have started doing cost benefit analysis of decriminalisation and regulation and even on conservative assumptions the benefits are enormous. For more: http://www.tdpf.org.uk/ it is well worth a look.

      Finally, with access to a regulated supply and safe environments for use many of the negative health side effects can be ameliorated and taxation from sales can, like tobacco, be diverted to help pay for any remaining health issues.

      As taxpayers we have nothing to lose but everything to gain from decriminalisation and regulation.

    • Bruce says:

      12:08am | 14/11/09

      Unfortunately, Kevin Rudd and the Labor party is like a “gummy tiger”. Lotsa growl but no teeth.

 

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

@MClarke23 nip out of camp to help out Warney? Now that would cause some chaos

Lucy Kippist

@SimonThomsen LOL you can try!

Lucy Kippist

Don't bring your children and other "rules" of supermarket shopping. Got a gripe or two of your own? Add to my list: http://bit.ly/dBWydm

Lucy Kippist

What voters really think of Tony Abbott, great piece by Nic Christensen & Tina Tek: http://bit.ly/bvLWSz#thepunch

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Breaking news: Something is going on

Breaking news: Something is going on

Is this the greatest ever send-up of 24-hour news? Warning: contains strong language and hilarity. From… Read more

10 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter