Page 4322 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 30 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The original series of amendments goes to a refinement, as Mr Moore would see it, of the on-the-spot fine regime that this Assembly, with some cross-party support, adopted some year or so ago. We were the second jurisdiction in Australia to adopt that on-the-spot fine approach to cannabis. It caused some controversy at the time but, I think, has fairly broad support. The philosophy behind this is not to say that we support, encourage or condone cannabis consumption; it is to accept the reality that cannabis is a drug that is widely used by young people. Every survey that is done shows that, and the survey that was released after the most recent Australian Health Ministers Council meeting showed that there continues to be very high usage of cannabis amongst Australian young people. We think those young people should not face a gaol term; they should not face a criminal conviction for simple use of cannabis.
One of the more disturbing things about that recent survey of cannabis use, which I am sure Mr Moore will refer to as he wraps up this debate, is that, while there is not a great deal of variation in usage of cannabis amongst young people - it is at pretty high levels throughout the country - there are some quite disturbing variations in imprisonment rates for simple cannabis use. In some States of Australia, and unfortunately New South Wales is one of them, quite high numbers of people are spending time in gaol for use of cannabis. That, this Assembly decided, was an undesirable mechanism.
Mr Moore's Bill, in its original amendments to section 171A, which is clause 4 of the Bill, contains five subclauses - (a) to (e). The Government will be suggesting that, when this Bill is voted on, we should vote seriatim on subclauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). Certainly, the Government's intention would be to vote against some of them, but for one of them, and Opposition members may want to follow a similar course. I think that is the best way procedurally to progress.
The first thing Mr Moore seeks to do is to make it, in effect, compulsory for the police officer to serve the simple cannabis expiation notice. At the moment there is a discretion vested in police to issue the on-the-spot fine or to proceed to go through the normal court proceedings.
Mr Moore: No; they can do nothing. It is not compulsory; they can still do nothing.
MR CONNOLLY: Or they can still do nothing. That is the third option. The choice is the discretion the police have always had to caution or, if they do something, they can either issue the on-the-spot fine or take the person through court. We know that the police do sometimes exercise their power to caution. There was a letter to the editor of the Canberra Times some months ago, that many of us would have read and been quite impressed by, from a parent saying how pleased they were and how impressed they were by the attitude of the AFP in Canberra when their teenage daughter had been detected in the city with a very small quantity of cannabis. She was taken by police to the Civic station and given a talking to about cannabis and why it is an undesirable product. The parents were called, and they came into the station and took her home. There was a mere caution. In some States of Australia that young girl would have faced criminal proceedings and the possibility of gaol. That would have been obscene, in the view of most members here, and certainly that young girl's parents think she learnt a lesson, and she did not have, for the rest of her life, a criminal conviction.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .