SUMMARY OFFENCES (DRUG PARAPHERNALIA) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

(Continued from page 2423.)

Clause 4.

Mr HANNA: I move:

Page 4, lines 35 and 36—Delete 'devices known as bongs, hookahs, narghiles, shishas and ghalyans' and substitute:

the device known as a bong, but does not include devices traditionally used for the smoking of macerated fruit pulp or fruit flavoured tobacco known as hookahs, narghiles, shishas or ghalyans

The challenge is to differentiate between what we commonly call bongs, which are a kind of water pipe, and those instruments which have traditionally been used, particularly in Middle Eastern cultures, for inhalation of fruit-flavoured tobacco or the mashed pulp of fruit itself. The definition of water pipe that I am suggesting specifically includes the device known as a bong; and those familiar with drug paraphernalia retail shops will know exactly what that is, even though it comes in many shapes and sizes. I am specifically excluding those devices, traditionally used for the smoking of macerated fruit pulp or fruit-flavoured tobacco, known as hookahs, narghiles, shishas or ghalyans.

The Attorney-General was good enough to give some background to these various devices, but they amount to the same thing. They are all in the class of water pipe, but they are distinctive in appearance and, generally, those in Adelaide would be imported, perhaps carried home by people visiting the Middle East. To my knowledge it is almost unheard of that they are used for the inhalation of cannabis smoke, but they could be.

The purpose of the bill is to take away the temptation or the lure of drug paraphernalia from retail shops. The presumption is that having these items on display is some encouragement to people to experiment with illicit drugs, particularly cannabis or hashish, and use devices such as bongs to inhale the smoke. The class of water pipes about which I am talking are usually—in fact, in almost every case of which I am aware in Adelaide—used for entirely legitimate purposes. I sincerely believe that, although the Hon. Ann Bressington had a fair point in her efforts with this legislation, the specific subcultural use of these implements was overlooked in her consideration.

It would be most unfortunate if a Lebanese bakery or a Persian food shop had one or two of these items on display after the passage of this legislation, if they had not heard of the passing of the law. Let us face it, even if there is a spot in The Advertiser, or some mention of it officially, it takes a while for that knowledge to permeate amongst all the groups and subcultures in our society. It would be most unfortunate if an honest and decent shopkeeper with one of these traditional implements for sale, with the expectation that it would be used for entirely legitimate purposes, were apprehended and punished for that.

So, it seems to me that the purposes of the legislation can be very largely met through its passage with this amendment, and yet innocent people who are not contravening laws regarding illicit drugs will be able to go about life as they do now. So, I think with the inclusion of these devices it is casting the net unfortunately wide, and it is going to catch innocent people. That would be most unfortunate.

The other aspect of this is that where people are legitimately enjoying fruit pulp or tobacco being smoked with the aid of a hookah or narghile, etc., then police, one would expect, would ask those people where they purchased their implement from. That is to say, if the sale of these implements was outlawed, one would expect police, if they see such implements being openly used in Hindley Street, as they are now several nights of the week, then one would expect the police to investigate, through questioning, where those implements were purchased.

It seems to me that, if people are lawfully going about their recreational pursuits, sitting there outside a cafe in Hindley Street, then they ought to be able to do that without questioning by police about where they obtained these implements. Such questioning could be construed, if not carefully done, as harassment, and that would be unfortunate, both for the standing of the police and the innocent citizens concerned.

So, I am hoping that the government will seriously consider this, because the government and Ann Bressington will be able to have what they want in terms of this legislation without catching up innocent, decent citizens unnecessarily.

Mrs REDMOND: I indicate that the opposition will support the amendment proposed by the member for Mitchell, although I do not think it will be successful. I think actually the parties in this chamber are at one in the intention of the legislation, and that is that neither the Attorney nor the member for Mitchell nor the opposition want to prohibit or stop the use of these various implements in the circumstances of the Egyptian Cafe in Hindley Street and other like premises.

So, whilst I do not necessarily agree with all of the reasoning put forward by the member for Mitchell, on balance it seems to me that it would put it out of consideration that there is a problem with these particular things if we adopted his proposed amendment, and to that end we will support the recommendation of the amendment.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I am astonished that, to curry favour with the member for Mitchell—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Well, the member for Heysen on behalf of the Liberal opposition says she does a lot of currying of favour with the member for Mitchell, and this is an egregious example—because if this amendment is carried the bill is, in effect, rendered nugatory. What can happen, of course, is that narghiles and hookahs will become tremendously popular and they will take the place of bongs at the retail premises Off Ya Tree. There is no distinction that can be made in law between bongs on the one hand and hookahs on the other. There just isn't a distinction, because a hookah or a narghile can be used to smoke cannabis.

I am astonished that the Liberal Party, having made its pledge to the Hon. Ann Bressington, in another place, is entirely two faced about it, and when it gets down here thinks that the Hon. Ann Bressington isn't looking. Well, it just won't wash. The government opposes the amendment.

Mr HANNA: In response to the Attorney, I think the Attorney is missing the point of the legislation, although I thought he had set it out fairly clearly when he was first speaking to the bill. The purpose of the legislation is to stop the encouragement of illicit drug use through the display of drug paraphernalia, such as bongs, in retail outlets. When you see windows full of little bongs, whether they be small or large, whatever shape they come in, if they come in a novelty design or whatever, there is a message to the community that the drug use, which is the likely end result of a purchase of those implements, is acceptable. That is what I think appals the Hon. Ann Bressington, and she has a point. But the display of the items I am talking about does not encourage drug use; I do not think most people associate them with cannabis use, and it is certainly not the case in the Middle Eastern community within Adelaide that these items are thought of as something associated with illicit drug use.

The purpose of the legislation, then, will still be maintained if this amendment is carried. At the very least, the Attorney might like to postpone further consideration of the bill to the next parliamentary week to enable further consultation with the groups that might be affected.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I think that is an excellent suggestion. I look forward to the member for Heysen taking this amendment to the Liberal party room and having a thorough discussion about it.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.