Page 3420 - Week 10 - Thursday, 20 October 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
tabling the government response to the Legislative Assembly committee inquiry in the in-principle stage. So I will not go into it. This not only introduces the concept of a small quantity amount with a maximum penalty of one penalty unit but also reduces the maximum penalty for personal possession of quantities of drugs above that amount to a new maximum penalty of 50 penalty units or imprisonment for six months or both. This significantly reduces the current penalty, which is 50 penalty units and two years imprisonment or both.
This was part of the work to change the term “personal possession limit” used in the private member’s bill to “small quantity” to be really clear about the difference between the quantity of drugs that will be effectively subject to the simple drug offence notice versus the possession offence and what is commonly considered the personal possession limit, which is actually anything under the trafficable quantity limits.
In the interests of time, I will not go into any more detail, as we discussed this in the in-principle stage and in the tabling of the government response.
MR HANSON (Murrumbidgee) (11.59): We will not be supporting the amendment. I do not like this being transferred to regulation, which is the way that the amounts will be decided on. I think that is the wrong approach, and I have spoken to that previously. It allows a minister to basically do what they want to do. My view is that it should be done in this place. I accept that it is a disallowable instrument, but, still, I do not think it is the right way to do it for such a substantive issue.
I note that the individual amounts have been reduced slightly. It is still, in my view, a significant amount. You still have 15 hits of heroin or meth, or thereabouts. But what this amendment also says is that you can have them concurrently. So you can have your meth and your heroin. So, in effect, what is happening is that the amendment increases the amounts.
What you had before was a certain amount that Mr Pettersson would say you could have—let us say meth was two grams. What Ms Stephen-Smith is saying is you can your 1.5 grams of meth and you can have one gram of heroin as well. So that increases the amount of drugs you can have in your possession; you just have to mix and match it up. I imagine this would suit dealers perfectly, because they will want to offer a variety of drugs when they are out there pedalling these sorts of quantities which are the sorts of amounts that can be—
Mr Barr interjecting—
MR HANSON: Mr Barr is shaking his head. The frontline police are saying that. So Mr Barr does not agree with the frontline police. Mr Barr thinks that they talk rubbish, and we have seen what his attitude is to people when they try and put things before this community. But let me be very clear: that is what they see this as. This is an ability for dealers to be able to take their 15 hits of whatever it is and 10 hits of something else and pedal that in a nightclub. That is pretty easy.
In presenting their evidence, it is good to see that it is not just Dr Paterson that cherry-picks evidence. We heard Ms Stephen-Smith cherry picking evidence as well,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video