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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 09 Hansard (Tuesday, 17 August 2004) . . Page.. 3683 ..

dealing with all aspects of the criminal law. That would be good for our country generally.

This bill also is significant in that it takes away some of the provisions in the old Drugs of Dependence Act. Over the years I have prosecuted under various provisions of that act and defended some. The criminal law evolved in an act, which fundamentally, as much as anything, was about legal drugs. So you had a bit of a mishmash. Codifying this, and putting in the criminal code, takes out from the Drugs of Dependence Act a lot of the criminal provisions, especially in relation to very serious offences. So, we welcome that. We also welcome some of the additional offences, which make it fairer, easier and better for society, and certainly simpler for the prosecution to bring relevant offences before the court and not to have to rely on less appropriate offences or catch-all offences. So, that in itself is to be welcomed.

In his introductory statement, the Attorney stated that the bill is directed against the illegal drug trade. We certainly have absolutely no problems with that. The illegal drug trade, not only in the ACT, but in Australia and worldwide, is a most insidious trade. It is an evil trade. People involved in it, deliberately trafficking drugs to the detriment of others, deserve to receive the full force of the law. Accordingly, a number of elements in this bill seek to do that. That is something we welcome.

I note that the bill provides for some additional offences. It specifically provides for more consistent maximum penalties determined on the amount of the drug involved. Over the past couple of decades there were a number of problems in the way the law operated in relation to that. So, if a person illegally manufactures a large commercial quantity, say a drug like amphetamines, or cultivates a large commercial quantity of controlled plants, the maximum penalty available for that most serious of offences is the same. It is life imprisonment. We certainly have no problem with that. As I said, many people die as a result of illegal drugs pedalled by some very nasty criminals in our society and overseas.

There is also a maximum penalty for manufacturing, trafficking or growing in commercial quantity a drug or plant. It has been made 25 years’ imprisonment for each. The bill also has a greater emphasis on organised crime, and encompasses a much broader range of criminal activities than does the old Drugs of Dependence Act. Again, that is something to be welcomed. There are some offences in relation to receiving money, the property of crime. Again that is something that we would welcome.

There is a new offence in relation to supplying drugs to a child, as well as using children to traffic in drugs, with a significant maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment. It is particularly heinous to use young children. I have heard of cases in Australia—I am not sure we have any in Canberra yet—of totally unscrupulous adults using children as young as about six or seven to supply drugs, so that is a welcome addition as well. The Attorney talked about precursors. I will not go into that, but that is a useful addition in relation to people who manufacture controlled drugs.

An important improvement relates to drugs that are often sold in a diluted form and drugs that are sold in a more pure form. There are some welcome clarifications there. In my experience that was something that would often confuse a court, especially as to an appropriate penalty to give someone who had about two kilos of cannabis, of which he

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