HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-05-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES (OFFENCES RELATING TO INSTRUCTIONS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

(Second reading debate adjourned on 5 May 2011.)

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

New clause 3A.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

Page 2, after line 10—Insert:

3A—Amendment of section 33A—Sale, manufacture etc of controlled precursor

Section 33A(1), (2) and (3)—delete subsections (1), (2) and (3) and substitute:

(1) A person who—

(a) sells a large commercial quantity of a controlled precursor; or

(b) has possession of a large commercial quantity of a controlled precursor intending to sell it,

believing that the person to whom it is, or is to be, sold or another person intends to use any of it to unlawfully manufacture a controlled drug is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $200,000 or imprisonment for 25 years, or both.

(2) A person who—

(a) sells a commercial quantity of a controlled precursor; or

(b) has possession of a commercial quantity of a controlled precursor intending to sell it,

believing that the person to whom it is, or is to be, sold or another person intends to use any of it to unlawfully manufacture a controlled drug is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $75,000 or imprisonment for 15 years, or both.

(3) A person who—

(a) sells a controlled precursor; or

(b) has possession of a controlled precursor intending to sell it,

believing that the person to whom it is, or is to be, sold or another person intends to use any of it to unlawfully manufacture a controlled drug is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $50,000 or imprisonment for 10 years, or both.

As I indicated in the second reading debate, this is to facilitate some consistency between the two pieces of legislation to ensure that we fill in all the gaps. Rather than repeat all the matters I raised in the second reading, I point out that, essentially, what I attempted to do on that occasion was to highlight that, although we already had a situation where being in possession of the document (that is, instructions) already had offences attached to it, there were some gaps in respect of the—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am sorry, member for Bragg, but I am already persuaded and I accept the amendment.

Ms Chapman: I am shocked into silence almost!

The CHAIR: Did you say you were shocked into silence, member for Bragg?

Ms CHAPMAN: I said, 'almost'. In response, I thank the minister for that indication.

New clause inserted.

Clause 4 passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Page 3, after line 13 [clause 5, inserted section 33DA]—Insert:

(2) In this section—

document includes any record of information whether in documentary, magnetic, electronic or other form.

I will just explain this briefly. This amendment, in effect, defines a document to include a variety of descriptions of what might be called an electronic document. At first sight, it was thought that the definition in the Acts Interpretation Act was sufficient. However, the Acts Interpretation Act relevantly says, amongst other things, that a document includes:

(d) any article or material from which sounds, images or writings are capable of being reproduced with or without the aid of any other article or device;

It is paragraph (d) (that I just read out) which is applicable and, on second thoughts and prompted by a submission from the Law Society, it seems that the definition requires that there be an article or material. An electronic document—a download, for example—or a URL (which, I gather, is some sort of electronic thing) need not have material form.

Therefore, the government thinks it is better to be safe, taking into account the remarks made by the Law Society, and make this amendment. In due course, we will also be looking at the definition in the Acts Interpretation Act to see whether that also needs to be examined.

Ms CHAPMAN: I thank the Attorney and also record my appreciation to the Law Society for bringing this deficiency to the attention of the house. We will consent to it.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Page 3, after line 26 [clause 6, inserted section 33GB]—Insert:

(2) In this section—

document includes any record of information whether in documentary, magnetic, electronic or other form.

This is virtually the same amendment and I have explained the reasons for moving it.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

Page 3, lines 28 to 30—Delete all words in these lines and substitute:

Section 33LA(2)—delete subsection (2)

This amendment was also prompted by a comment from the Law Society. In the Controlled Substances Act, a great many serious things are dealt with by regulations. The normal drafting convention is that it is referred to be describing a matter as 'prescribed'. That word suffices to authorise the regulation. The Acts Interpretation Act says:

prescribed means—

(a) when used in an Act—prescribed by the Act or by a statutory instrument made, or to be made, under the Act.

In this particular instance, the drafters specified that the matter would be prescribed by regulation. That was not necessary and is formally inconsistent with the design of the rest of the act. So, it is intended to remove the unnecessary description.

The CHAIR: I am advised that, because the member for Bragg's amendment, although also on clause 7, is a number of lines earlier, we do, in fact, need to attend to your amendment first, member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: I was all ready to consent to that being remedied but, to ensure that we follow proper process, I move:

Page 3, lines 27 to 30—Delete the clause and substitute:

7—Substitution of section 33LA

Section 33LA—delete the clause and substitute:

33LA—Possession or supply of prescribed equipment

A person who, without reasonable excuse (proof of which lies on the person)—

(a) has possession of any prescribed equipment; or

(b) supplies to another person any prescribed equipment; or

(c) has possession of any prescribed equipment intending to supply it to another person,

is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $10,000 or imprisonment for two years, or both.

Again, this is to be consistent across the board so that we fill in the gaps. So, not just sale and intent—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Harmony must be in the air today because I am compelled again by the remarks of my learned and honourable friend—

The CHAIR: Which she has not finished.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It doesn't matter. She has already got me. In fact, to terribly abuse a great line from a film, 'She had me at hello.'

The CHAIR: Oh, that's sweet. So, can I just get this very clear. Everybody is very happy to delete the words in clause 7, page 3, lines 27 to 30, and make the substitution; and then we are happy to delete some words in the lines 28 to 30 of clause 7, page 3.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: More good news. I am withdrawing my amendment because it has been adequately attended to by the work of the member for Bragg.

Hon. J.R. Rau's amendment withdrawn; Ms Chapman's amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 8.

Ms CHAPMAN: I indicate again that, in the spirit of agreement, the foreshadowed amendment which is to cover the Law Society recommendation of the Attorney-General will be consented to. I think it is still needed, actually, but, in any event, I move amendment No. 3 in my name, for the reasons as previously outlined:

Page 4, after line 3 [clause 8, inserted section 33LAB]—After paragraph (b) insert:

(c) has possession of a document containing instructions for the manufacture of a controlled drug or the cultivation of a controlled plant to supply it to another person,

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Having regard to the fantastic spirit that is in the chamber today, I also accept the amendment moved by the honourable member. There is an atmosphere here today which is truly beautiful. I move:

Page 4, after line 5 [clause 8, inserted section 33LAB]—Insert:

(2) In this section—

document includes any record of information whether in documentary, magnetic, electronic or other form.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

New clause 9.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

Page 4, after line 5—Insert:

9—Amendment of section 33LB—Possession or supply of prescribed quantity of controlled precursor

Section 33LB(1), (2), (3) and (4)—delete subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) and substitute:

(1) A person who, without reasonable excuse (proof of which lies on the person)—

(a) has possession of a prescribed quantity of a controlled precursor; or

(b) supplies to another person a prescribed quantity of a controlled precursor; or

(c) has possession of a prescribed quantity of a controlled precursor intending to supply it to another person,

is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $10,000 or imprisonment for three years, or both.

(2) A person who, without reasonable excuse (proof of which lies on the person)—

(a) —

(i) has possession of a prescribed quantity of a controlled precursor; or

(ii) supplies to another person a prescribed quantity of a controlled precursor, or

(iii) has possession of a prescribed quantity of a controlled precursor intending to supply it to another person; and

(b) —

(i) has possession of a prescribed quantity of another kind of controlled precursor or any prescribed equipment, or

(ii) supplies to another person a prescribed quantity of another kind of controlled precursor or any prescribed equipment; or

(iii) has possession of a prescribed quantity of another kind of controlled precursor or any prescribed equipment intending to supply it to another person,

is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $15,000 or imprisonment for five years, or both.

I move this amendment for the reasons previously outlined.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I cannot let this opportunity pass without saying I consent.

New clause inserted.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Urban Development, Planning and the City of Adelaide, Minister for Tourism, Minister for Food Marketing) (15:14): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

I take great pleasure in moving that this bill now be read a third time and, in so doing, I would like to congratulate the member for Bragg in having assisted us all today in seeing the legislative equivalent of the model litigant at work.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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