HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2007-11-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES (CANNABIS OFFENCES) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 21 June 2007. Page 517.)

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (11:10): The bill introduced by the Hon. Dennis Hood does away with some government amendments to the Controlled Substances Act 1984 which have not come into operation yet contained in the Controlled Substances (Serious Drug Offences) Amendment Act 2005. Mr Hood’s bill would do three things. It would set a blanket penalty of $5,000 or two years’ imprisonment or both for the offence of cultivating cannabis.

It would deny the courts the discretion to consider cannabis differently from other serious drugs when it comes to fixing a penalty and it would remove the ability for a person to expiate an offence of cultivating cannabis, even if only one plant. Mr Hood’s bill treats cultivating cannabis like producing any other serious drug. The bill removes the concept of personal use from the act completely and, effectively, it says that any cultivation means the grower intends to sell the drug to someone else.

The government’s amendments recognise that any cultivation of cannabis is still an offence. We make no apologies for being tough on illegal drugs because of the harm they cause not only to the individual user but also the extended harm in the form of robberies to feed habits and the activities of outlaw bikie gangs. The more you cultivate, the worse things will be. However, cannabis is not like any other serious drug. It is the most widely used drug after alcohol and tobacco and it is quite prevalent in our society. Nearly two in every five Australians—in fact, 39 per cent—aged 14 or older have used cannabis at some stage.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: So, 40 per cent of Australians—

Mr Hanna interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes, I would like the member for Finniss to answer that question. I think it is most pertinent. How does he achieve that state? Perhaps he achieves it naturally. Forty per cent of Australians are not deserving of two years’ imprisonment which is what Mr Hood’s bill maybe thought to imply. There is no doubt that some users grow small amounts of cannabis for their own use. That is why the government’s amendments impose a tiered penalty structure depending on factors like the quantity of cannabis being cultivated and the intended end user.

Speaking about the bill on radio, Mr Hood said that the bill also ‘gives the judges more options’. That is not true. Mr Hood’s bill would remove the discretion currently given to a judge when fixing penalty to treat cannabis differently from other serious drugs. The government’s amendments, to be proclaimed very soon, are preferable as they are more sophisticated and proportionate. The government's amendments will operate like this. The expiation fee for cultivating one non-hydroponically grown cannabis plant has already been doubled from $150 to $300. Anything more than one plant still means that the offence will not be expiable. In this way, the government position recognises that, although personal use of cannabis is still an offence, it is not treated as a serious drug for the purpose of setting a penalty.

Mr Pengilly: It should be.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: 'It should be', says the member for Finniss. Anyone who has possession of any amount of cannabis should go to court. Is that the position of the member for Finniss? I am waiting for an answer from the member for Finniss. So, the member for Finniss does not have the courage of his convictions when it comes to putting it down on the record.

Mr Pengilly: It's not the only alternative.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Any cultivation where the grower supplies it or intends to will attract a penalty of $2,000, or two years imprisonment, or both. This reflects the evil of spreading illicit drugs in society, and may well mirror what Mr Hood's bill is really trying to achieve. Cultivating a trafficable quantity of cannabis—250 grams or more—presumes that there would be a sale, and therefore attracts a maximum penalty of $50,000, or 10 years imprisonment, or both. Cultivating a commercial quantity of cannabis—1 kilogram pure, 2½ kilograms if mixed with something else, say, garden herbs—will attract a maximum penalty of $200,000, or 25 years imprisonment, or both. Cultivating a large commercial quantity of cannabis—2 kilograms pure, 12½ kilograms mixed—will attract a maximum penalty of half a million dollars, or life imprisonment, or both.

These quantities have been recommended by the National Model Criminal Code Offices Committee, and that was the information for which we were waiting before we could proclaim the bill. The government's amendments are tougher again on sales involving children and will attract a penalty of $1 million, or life imprisonment, or both.

Mr Hanna: Mr Hood is tougher.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Well, the member for Mitchell has record in this area of law. It reflects his history of being a member of the Greens—

Mr Hanna: And of the Labor Party.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: —and of being on the extreme left of the drugs debate. He is at the opposite pole from Mr Hood. I recommend that the house not support the bill.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT