Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Thursday, 24 June 2004) . . Page.. 2739 ..

Bill today and calls upon all jurisdictions in the country to do the same so that our combined and co-ordinated efforts may one day rid us of this scourge that so deeply affects the well being of our communities.

Mr Speaker, the reforms in this package are primarily based on the report developed by the officers’ committee, entitled “Serious Drug Offences”, which was released in 1998 after an extensive nationwide consultation process. As I have indicated the model provisions were designed for adoption by all jurisdictions as part of a uniform national approach for dealing with serious drug crime.

In common with most other Australian jurisdictions, the ACT’s offences for dealing with the illicit drug trade were essentially grafted onto legislation – the Drugs of Dependence Act in the ACT - that was originally designed for regulating the legal distribution and use of poisons, pharmaceutical drugs and other dangerous substances used in medicine, industry and agriculture. Consequently the offences are not as well tuned as they could be to deal effectively with the illegal trade and often there are anomalies because of the dual character of the legislation.

For example, section 162(3) of the Drugs of Dependence Act imposes a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for cultivating a commercial crop of cannabis but only a 10 years maximum for manufacturing amphetamines in any quantity. The evident reason for the discrepancy is that the cannabis prohibition is directed solely at the black market, whilst the prohibition against manufacture of amphetamines applies to the legal and black markets alike.

A major advantage of the Bill is that it will enact a regime of offences that are specifically designed for and directed against the illegal drug trade. Consequently the Bill offences are more effectively targeted with less anomalies and the overall scheme is more comprehensive so that a much broader range of the illegal trade is addressed.

The bill also includes some additional lower order offences for cannabis and cannabis plants based on offences in the Drugs of Dependence Act. There will also be a reduction in the number of plants covered by the simple cannabis offence notice scheme. The Bill will also remove a number of offences from the Drugs of Dependence Act that will be made redundant by the enactment of chapter 6, however, it will leave intact the health and regulatory scheme in that Act so that it will continue to be the primary legislative tool for regulating the legitimate manufacture, supply, use and misuse of pharmaceuticals and controlled drugs in the ACT.

The Drugs of Dependence Act offences that can be utilised against those involved in the illicit drug trade are essentially limited to selling, supplying, possessing, manufacturing and cultivating controlled drugs and plants. The offences in chapter 6 of the bill cover a wider range of criminality and apply more consistent maximum penalties determined on the amount of drug involved.

Therefore, whether a person illegally manufactures a “large commercial quantity” of amphetamines or cultivates a “large commercial quantity” of controlled plants, the maximum penalty that applies is the same, life imprisonment. Similarly, the maximum penalty for manufacturing, trafficking or growing a “commercial quantity” of a controlled drug or plant is 25 years imprisonment for each.

The bill offences also have a greater organised crime focus and consequently cover a much broader range of criminal activity than the Drugs of Dependence Act. The

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .