Page 903 - Week 03 - Thursday, 14 March 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
two or three people living in a house. One person was found in possession of a prohibited substance, namely, some sort of drug, and the other people were charged as well.
In one Supreme Court case in about 1980 or 1981 - I think the case of Benson - it was clearly shown that the other two defendants really knew nothing much about what the third person in this shared group house was doing and knew nothing about the drugs that person held. Accordingly, they were found not to be in possession. That case, which I think went to the Federal Court, and similar cases clearly indicate what possession is. So, I think some of the fears expressed in relation to that question can be allayed.
There are a number of minor points the Attorney-General has already taken up. A number of clauses were referred to which were incorrect; some minor points have been drawn to his attention, and I think those have been taken into account.
I was somewhat concerned about a couple of other points as a result of representations made to me by some of the sporting shooters groups. Firstly, I have had the chance - and I thank the Attorney-General for it - to talk to officers from the Government Law Office about the question of penalties. For some of the offences - members of the Labor Party might be surprised to hear this - I thought they were a little too high. For instance, if you fail to sign a licence there is a maximum fine of $1,000.
Mr Connolly: Run that one past me again.
MR STEFANIAK: I will run that one past Mr Connolly. I thought that in some instances these penalties might be a little too high. Funnily enough, this is not the only Bill I have seen where I have occasionally had that thought. I am assured by the government law officers that the trend in all current legislation is for penalties to be continually upgraded. That is a sign of the times, and if that is the case I certainly have no problems with it. Basically, as Mr Connolly would probably appreciate, I believe that if a person commits an offence he should be given a just and reasonable and, if need be, severe and sufficient penalty.
Mr Berry: We will not go as far as capital punishment for a skateboard offence, though.
MR STEFANIAK: I do not think so. That would be a little too much.
Mr Collaery: But we have suspended death sentences.
MR STEFANIAK: The Attorney-General was telling me about how the Chinese have two-year suspended death sentences. (Quorum formed) There are a few other potential problems, and I have written to the Attorney-General in relation to these. Mr Connolly has seen the various shooting groups
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .