Page 2192 - Week 06 - Thursday, 6 June 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
prosecutory path, they are left with a decision about whether to seize the cannabis, which still leaves them in an awkward position. Our very strong direction to members now is that you have a very clear way to ensure your own integrity. If you are not going to take action on a particular matter, you need to handle what is an illicit substance very carefully—seize it appropriately, record it appropriately et cetera. So there are issues with not only the potential for a charge to be laid but also what we do about possession and what advice we would give our members about how they handle that. That is the other key part of my concern around how we will operationalise it.
I asked the government a series of questions on notice about the legal protections given by the bill. Their summing up answer was not inspiring:
The Government is working toward a model that would give ACT residents confidence about the type of conduct and circumstances that would be lawful under the proposed amendments.
More cheerfully, the committee heard evidence from the Law Society that there may be a solution to the legal problems. They suggested the inclusion of express authorisation. They said:
Expressly stating that it is an authorisation in the legislation would seem to at least avoid vacating the field. The commonwealth do not seem to have expressed a desire to cover the field themselves, but in the absence of any other law—and that seems to be the issue.
It remains unclear whether Mr Pettersson’s bill can achieve its objective. If it does not but Canberrans think that it has, then, as Mrs Dunne pointed out, there are possible criminal implications for people who may believe that they can safely grow and possess cannabis for personal use. This is why the committee made three recommendations on legal issues.
The first is recommendation 10. It says:
The Committee recommends that Section 171AA of the Drugs of Dependence (Personal Cannabis Use) Amendment Bill 2018 be amended to include express authorisation for the cultivation and use of cannabis by individuals for personal use.
This is based on the evidence from the Law Society which I just quoted. It was disappointing that, despite the fact that the government appeared after the Law Society, the government had not taken the time to read the transcripts of the committee’s hearings. Thus, when they were asked to express an opinion about this proposed solution, all they could say was that they had not heard of it. That was remarkably unhelpful.
Recommendation 15 said:
The Committee recommends that strong public information about the provisions of the Drugs of Dependence (Personal Cannabis Use) Amendment Bill 2018 proceed or coincide with the implementation of the Drugs of Dependence (Personal Cannabis Use) Amendment Bill 2018.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video