Page 4330 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 30 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
On the issue of self-administration, the committee's report was most specific, saying at paragraph 2.5.17:
... it should no longer be an offence for a person to administer cannabis to themselves.
While the 1992 Bill introduced the concept of a simple cannabis offence for possession of not more than 25 grams of cannabis and the cultivating of not more than five cannabis plants, it did not address the issue of self-administration of cannabis. In subsection 171(2) of the Drugs of Dependence Act, the penalty for self-administration of a prohibited substance, including cannabis, is $5,000 or imprisonment for two years, or both. As my colleague Mr Moore said in presenting the Bill we are debating today:
Clearly, that is an entirely inappropriate situation.
I welcome the amendments in this Bill, which will rectify this anomaly and bring the personal use of marijuana under the same expiation notice system as possession and cultivation of it in small amounts.
This Bill also addresses two other issues, these being the issue of police discretion and the reduction of the fine for a simple cannabis offence from $100 to $40. On the issue of police discretion, the case is quite simple. Currently, the police have the discretion, in the case of a simple cannabis offence, to issue a verbal warning, effectively taking no punitive action, to issue an expiation notice, or to charge a person under subsection 171A(6) of the Drugs of Dependence Act. Clearly, the philosophy behind the harm minimisation approach, the recommendations of the select committee, and the intent of the initial amendments to the Act would dictate that, in the case of a simple cannabis offence, allowing the police to have the discretion to charge a person is inappropriate. Once again, I welcome the amendments included in this Bill, which will remove this discretion from the Act and limit police discretion in the case of a simple cannabis offence to either taking no action or issuing an expiation notice.
Finally, I would like to address the issue of the level of the fine associated with an expiation notice. The Assembly has now had time to see what has happened in the ACT since the legislation was amended in 1992. Since then, nearly one per cent of the ACT population has been issued with expiation notices. At least one-third of those served with notices have appeared in court, due to being unable to pay the $100 fine. This means that the court system is still seeing people charged with simple cannabis offences, despite the fact that one of the aims of the 1992 amendments to the Drugs of Dependence Act was to minimise the impact that such charges have on the caseload of the courts. It is certainly time to re-evaluate whether the level of the fine for expiation notices is proving to be a barrier to reducing this problem.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, the losers are the poor, the disenfranchised, the impoverished - in other words, those least able to pay what to them is a substantial fine. It seems clear to me that, if the unemployed or low income earners are being penalised for being financially disadvantaged and thus ending up in court and with criminal records, action needs to be taken to rectify the situation. It appears that the level of the fine for expiation notices may mean that the very people the initial amendments
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .