Page 461 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 20 February 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The Society considers that clause 6 could be inconsistent with section 308 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).
As section 308.1(1) states that the possession of a substance that is a ‘controlled drug’ (i.e. cannabis) is an offence, clause 6 could have no effect insofar that it legalises the possession of 50g or less of cannabis.
In our view, even if clause 6 is not inconsistent with section 308 … a person who possesses 50g or less of cannabis could still be charged with the Commonwealth offence of possessing a substance that is a controlled drug …
That is a legal issue that has been raised with this bill. I understand there are other concerns from the government.
The Law Society and commentators in public debate have questioned how this bill interacts with the drug driving laws. As I noted recently, I think in the debate last week, cannabis, behind alcohol, is the second most prevalent drug when it comes to road fatalities. Do we want to increase the consumption of cannabis? Why do we want to do that?
There have also been problems with the definition of cultivation. If there are multiple people in a house, this, as I think the government has recognised, is problematic. How many plants are permitted? How many can you have? Is it going to mimic a grow house? What about when the plants themselves contain more than the 50 grams which are permitted by law? The Law Society made comments on this in their advice. They say:
Under the Bill, a person who legally cultivates 1 to 4 cannabis plants may unintentionally contravene clause 6 as an individual cannabis plant can harvest more than 50 grams of cannabis.
How does that operate? Again, we do not know. That has not been answered. It is an area of more confusion in this bill. It would be a farce if it were legal to have a large cannabis plant in a house but illegal to take an amount off it weighing more than 50 grams.
What about people who have drug trafficking convictions? Are people who have drug trafficking convictions allowed to do this—hydroponically, if Mr Rattenbury gets his way? A criminal gang—who knows, maybe one of the outlaw motorcycle gangs that are flourishing in this town—can establish a house. They can have a number of members residing in that establishment. Each has four plants. These are people with criminal convictions for drug trafficking, and they can grow it hydroponically if Mr Rattenbury has his way. The police will be powerless to do anything. Little grow houses would be established everywhere. I am sure there would be crime gangs in New South Wales and elsewhere that would see the opportunity here to rent a house, move a whole bunch of people in, maybe five people, and grow 20 plants hydroponically. And the police are powerless to do anything. There you have a grow house in Canberra, a legal grow house under Mr Pettersson’s bill. That is what he wants. That is what this law allows.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video