Page 4324 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 30 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
through the Assembly the Government took the view - and I think those Opposition members who supported the package were of this view as well, when they go back and look at the debates - that what we were doing was changing the structure to avoid the criminal conviction, but we were not tampering with the penalty.
For many years the ACT had had quite low penalties - the existing $100 penalty - for the simple possession of a small quantity offences. The Government was very conscious of the need not to send the wrong signal to the community when we put through the on-the-spot fine provisions, to say that this remains a course of conduct that we do not encourage, that is undesirable. It is not legal to smoke cannabis in the ACT, although sometimes people try to say that it is. From time to time people appearing before our magistrates courts with very large and clearly commercial quantities of cannabis get up and explain to the magistrate, "But, Magistrate, I thought it was legal to have cannabis in the ACT". It is something of a clutching at straws defence, I think. They tend not to be believed when they do that.
We need to be careful that we do not send the wrong signal, so the Government will not be supporting at this stage the provision that substantially reduces the penalty, believing that $100 for an on-the-spot fine is not an unreasonable penalty, and we would continue it there. There have been cases where people have had difficulties in immediately getting the $100, and police have, I understand, exercised discretion to allow payment over time and so forth. Again, the Government does not think there is compelling reason to tamper with the penalties. So, of the three original proposals in the Bill, the Government would oppose two but support one.
Mr Moore has then circulated a further amendment, which is to introduce a new clause into the Act that provides a very simple defence saying that it is not an offence to have small quantities of cannabis if a medical practitioner engaged in research has certified that it is being used for research. The concept of looking seriously at the potential medicinal benefit of cannabis is a very serious issue and one the Government has some sympathy for. Again, the very major study on cannabis in Australia that was recently produced through the Australian Health Ministers forum and has been published makes the point that there has been some work done over the years that suggests that cannabis could be quite useful, particularly in areas such as glaucoma, in areas of pain relief for patients who are in an advanced stage of cancer conditions and patients who are suffering from AIDS in the advanced stage. There has been a lot of anecdotal evidence from the United States suggesting that cannabis can be a useful pain reliever. There has been some scientific research, but not enough, and the report recommends that more research be done.
The Government agrees that more research should be done, but I believe that the legislation at the moment provides a mechanism to do that. Part 4 of the Drugs of Dependence Act provides a mechanism for research which can involve the use and consumption of cannabis. It is a fairly complex process. It requires very careful preparation of a research program. In effect, section 32 of the Act says that, if a person proposes to conduct a research program into medical use of cannabis, they should apply to the Minister for an authorisation. There are fairly detailed criteria in the application.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .