Page 2075 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 9 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Kaine: I thought this was Mr Moore's Bill. It is yours now, is it? This is what "we" intend to do, not Mr Moore.
MR CONNOLLY: The difference between Mr Moore's Bill and our amendments is the question of quantities. Mr Moore goes a considerable distance from the current law and significantly relaxes penalties. The Labor Government amendment to Mr Moore's Bill retains the existing penalties, Madam Speaker, and that is a very significant point. The difference is that a person who is detected by the police with up to 25 grams of marijuana or up to five plants will have an option. The police officer, under our proposal, would be able to issue an on-the-spot fine. The person would then have the option of disputing that on-the-spot fine in court or paying the $100.
It is true, Madam Speaker, that it is extraordinarily rare for personal use offences of up to 25 grams or five plants to attract a $100 fine in court. The magistrates in this Territory tend to impose a fine in the order of $40 or $50. It has been the case for many years. That is why Mr Moore proposed $40. We prefer to leave it at $100 because we are sending the message that this remains an offence. The person, essentially, has the choice of going to court, contesting their guilt, I suppose, at the highest extreme, or seeking a plea in mitigation and perhaps getting less than a $100 fine, but running the risk, Madam Speaker, of a court conviction for a drug offence. For a young person, particularly for a young person, that is a very serious matter.
There are many countries in our region of the world where having a criminal record for a drug offence has very severe penalties in terms of the ability of the person to travel. A drug offence would appear on any criminal record sheets as an offence under section 164 or section 171 of the Drugs of Dependence Act. The stigma of having a criminal record for a drug offence is quite dramatic in our society, and we say that young persons particularly, but all residents, ought not to have to face that; that it is a more sensible proposal to allow the existing penalty regime to be expiated by way of an on-the-spot fine.
The interjection from Mr Kaine saying that we are wanting to give drugs to kids, that we had a little bit of a row about earlier on, is extremely mischievous. That is the sort of thing that we would expect the Liberal Party to continue to try to peddle around this community.
Mr Kaine: I take a point of order, Madam Speaker. That is not what I said. I said that what they want to do is to make them freely available. I did not say "give them to". There is a very real distinction between what I said and what he is now representing I said.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! Thank you, Mr Kaine.
MR CONNOLLY: I withdraw what I said and I thank Mr Kaine for clarifying it because he digs the hole just that little bit deeper. This mischievous claim that we are trying to make it freely available is total nonsense because making it freely available involves trafficking or supplying, and the offences for sale or supply, for trafficking, for passing drugs over, will remain, under our proposal, very high. I would note that, under Mr Moore's proposal - - -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .