HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-07-20 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 June 2010.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (11:18): I rise to speak on the Controlled Substances (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2010 and to indicate that, whilst a significant amendment is foreshadowed by the opposition, we will otherwise be supporting the passage of the second and third reading of the bill in this house, and I think my contribution will explain why. This bill was introduced quite recently in the parliament to support—the government claims—the fulfilling of a commitment made during the 2010 election. Members will recall that the Australian Labor Party published a policy entitled 'Safer Streets—Community Safety' during the election campaign. One of the planks of this policy proposed that a new offence be created, in particular that there be a new aggravated offence of trafficking controlled drugs in or around licensed premises and entertainment venues, and that this would have a 'powerful effect' (they are my words) on the incidence of young, vulnerable people who might attend licensed premises, in particular nightclubs, being approached by predatory and immoral parties with a view to selling drugs to them.

I think members are well aware—and it has been highlighted by the media—that when young people attend entertainment venues, and particularly when they have access to alcoholic beverages, their judgement in rejecting advances or approaches by persons with such ill intent towards them—that is, to peddle illicit drugs—is made more difficult. In these circumstances, their resistance factor is very low and it makes them very vulnerable. Therefore, it is a worthy objective of any government to try to address this issue and to deal with it.

The government's answer in presenting this law is that its principal objective is to impose a much higher penalty and pose a greater deterrence to drug dealing around licensed premises where such young people are so vulnerable. I have to say that, in the absence of identifying any significant action on behalf of government agencies to detect, arrest, prosecute and deal with people who traffic in these circumstances, it is being adequately dealt with right now.

One way of demonstrating that would be if the government, in particular the Attorney-General, is able to present to us some evidence that there has been some proactive action in this regard and that that has translated to a number of prosecutions at least, if not successfully obtaining convictions. That would demonstrate how serious the government really is in ensuring that we minimise the risk to young people in these circumstances.

In other words, we have an existing regime of law, which is currently very severe—and this makes it more severe in very restricted circumstances—but it is of little consequence, to be honest, and of no benefit as a deterrent unless the current offenders are being arrested, prosecuted and appropriately dealt with. I will be very interested to hear from the Attorney-General as to the success rate to date under the current legislation, and it is important that we look at the current position.

Distinct in our criminal law is the provision for punishment for people who consume illicit drugs. To some degree, over a period of time, the parliament has exercised some leniency towards those who might consume drugs such as cannabis as distinct from others. That is not what we are dealing with today in any event. What we are dealing with today is the other side of the coin, those who are actually trafficking the drug to the ultimate consumer or user, and in particular to young people.

When we talk about trafficking of a controlled drug, we are talking about the selling or intention to sell the drug, and unless there is evidence to the contrary it is presumed to be trafficable activity if a certain volume or weight is actually applied to the illicit drug in question, the controlled drug under our legislation. The maximum penalty at present is a fine and imprisonment of $500,000 and life respectively if one has a large commercial quantity found in one's possession and with the intent to sell, or selling indeed; of $200,000 and 25 years respectively for a commercial quantity; and of $50,000 and 10 years respectively below a commercial quantity.

The controlled drugs are significant. We know that with heroin and amphetamines many cases come to our attention, often in the media, tragically, usually when the vulnerable person has died; they have arrived at an emergency department at a hospital after a public function or entertainment and are found to be dead on arrival, no matter what interventions are applied. We hear all about it in the news and we feel very sad about that, and obviously a community and family are grieving when that occurs. So there is a desire, I think, amongst everyone, every responsible parent in this state particularly, to try and do something to change that.

For cannabis, a large commercial quantity applicable under the current law would provide for two kilograms of pure cannabis and 12.5 kilograms of mixed cannabis; and a commercial quantity, a kilogram of pure or 2.5 kilograms of mixed. That is quite a lot of cannabis to carry around outside an entertainment facility for this to apply to, but when people are found with this amount of cannabis, for example—and there are other graduations for other drugs—there is the presumption that it is being done, not for the personal use of the carrier, but for distribution to those who might be induced into purchasing some at these events.

That is the activity that is under question and for which the government is proposing to provide a deterrent by this new policy and this bill. Essentially what it is proposing to do by this bill is in a very discrete area, and that is to increase the penalty for trafficking in a prescribed area from $50,000 to $75,000 and from 10 years to 15 years when it is below that commercial quantity. To further restrict it again, cannabis is not going to be included, and essentially under our state legislation we are dealing with heroin and amphetamines.

The opposition has asked itself the question that, if this is such a bad thing, if our children are going to be exposed to drugs in these circumstances, and it is acknowledged that they are more vulnerable if they are under the influence of alcohol or in a mixed environment where they are under pressure from peers attending such a function, why on earth would we support legislation that excludes cannabis. So it is the opposition's view that, if we are really serious about this being effective and actually applying to cases where there is a serious consequence, namely death, we should also be looking at what is clearly in South Australia the most prolific drug, and that is cannabis.

It is just nonsensical to exclude this when it is such a common drug of choice in South Australia, across the spectrum—this does not just apply to young people. It just seems utterly bizarre that the government would attempt to introduce legislation, presenting to us as though it cared about people in this situation, and exclude what is a most common drug. Again, we are not talking about the consumer at this end: this is an offence for a trafficker. If we say that it is unacceptable for someone to traffic drugs and peddle them to young people particularly, and we are going to pass a law that demonstrates our fury at those who participate in this, we have to be consistent, and it needs to be demonstrably effective.

On this second point about its being demonstrably effective, I think it is important that we have an understanding here in parliament about whether, in fact, the government has been effective in ensuring that its agencies are currently acting to enforce the current law, which, let us face it, in the scheme of things, is pretty severe. In relation to the maximum penalties, there are very few offences, other than life imprisonment offences, where such a heavy regime of penalty applies. It is hard to think that you could be in a situation that is harsher than life imprisonment. Certainly for other offences and felonies in particular there is some graduation, and there are some circumstances that apply which will reduce or minimise parole periods and diminish the actual effect of such a penalty.

The second aspect is this. I ask myself the question: how will the threat of an extra five years' imprisonment or an extra $15,000 maximum fine be a deterrent? I have asked myself this question a lot during the term of this government because, prior to the current Attorney-General's tenure, in the eight years I have been here, time and again legislation was presented with the expectation that it would be a panacea (well-intended as it might be) to effect and introduce a regime which would reduce harm to the innocent with this promise that a higher penalty would be a deterrent.

Certainly in the second reading contribution there has been no evidence that that will make a difference as a deterrent. I place on the record my view—and I think it is shared by a number of people who have experience in this area, irrespective of whether they have had an interest directly in this area—that the ultimate sanction by penalty is not the deterrent. It may be a factor for some, but it is the fear of being caught that is the significant motivation for someone not to go over that boundary and contravene the laws that are in place, not the penalty.

If ever there was evidence of that, in the United States, approximately half the 52 states have the death penalty for murder and the other half do not. In half of the United States you can have a lethal injection or electrocution—and I think in some states hanging is still available. The conviction rates for murder in the states that have capital punishment and in those that do not have capital punishment are almost the same. The rate of prosecution for murder, of course, raises another interesting aspect, and I do not think in the course of this debate we need to go into it. However, I make that point that saying to someone, 'Don't murder someone because it is wrong and against the law and you will be the subject of a severe penalty of capital punishment or life imprisonment' is not the motivation to stop people doing it.

It is fair to say that, in Australia, in South Australia in particular (and fortunately we do not have the same murder rate as the United States), the overwhelming majority of murders involve domestic partners, usually husbands and wives. The circumstances surrounding these severe crimes, which attract life imprisonment in this state, do not make any difference. These circumstances are there and, unless we address them, we are not going to diminish the murder rate in this state.

It is often said to be an effective deterrent for law-abiding citizens in the first place—that is, for people who have an understanding that to kill someone in none of the circumstances that are allowed to occur (that is, defence, conflict, etc.) is unacceptable, it is unlawful and they will not do it; they make that judgment. They perhaps live in circumstances in which they are not pushed to the brink and commit that offence—and that is a great thing. Because laws are there, we hope to modify the behaviour of people, to keep people in check and to act as a reminder. It is a very effective tool, I think, for those who are good citizens in any event.

Let us understand, however, that this offence—that is, the decision by somebody to make a lot of money by peddling illicit drugs in the full knowledge that they could cause severe ill health and/or death to the recipient—is unconscionable and illegal, and it is condemned by people in this house and the community generally. Our constituents have an expectation that we maintain the rage and a high level of penalty for that behaviour.

The current regime is a severe one and it is important, not least because it gives some reassurance to the public that there will be some response in the event that someone transgresses by that behaviour—and that is a good thing. I am still at a loss as to whether the extra five years or the extra $15,000 sitting on a statute book is going to deter someone in those circumstances; if it does, fantastic. I would love to hear the testimony of a defendant accused of one of these offences standing in the Supreme Court saying, 'I have done that, and I am going to pay the price and I am not going to do it again. I have found out that this is the penalty, and I am never going to do this again.'

That would be fantastic, and I would love to hear it, but I am not convinced that an extra $15,000, relative to the very lucrative financial reward for this behaviour, is going to make a scrap of difference or that the threat of the possibility of an extra five years' imprisonment is going to make a scrap of difference; however, if it does, I will congratulate the government for adding this enhancement of value to deterrence from this heinous crime.

I wish to touch on the question of a prescribed area. I think it is fair to say that what we ultimately ended up with in the bill in the definition of a prescribed area is a far cry from the government's announcement during the election campaign. Clearly, the emotive issue of young teenagers being exposed to drugs when they go off to a concert was very effective in getting the attention of the people in the community because we see sad cases of both boys and girls, (although we more often hear of young girls) taking amphetamines with tragic consequences. So, there is an immediate passionate and emotional response to do things that are going to prevent that.

What we have ended up with in the legislation, though, is that premises where a liquor licence is in force will be required to cover a much broader spectrum. This includes: a hotel licence, a restaurant licence that includes an external trading authorisation, an entertainment venue licence, a club licence that includes an extended trading authorisation, a special circumstance licence that includes an extended trading authorisation, and premises at which members of the public are gathered for public entertainment.

I do not know the incidence rate for the trafficking of drugs at well-known and highly regarded events such as Carnevale or other multicultural events in South Australia at which alcohol is sold, for example, the wine store at the Uraidla show, which has a display and tasting area under licence. I do not know whether there is a problem in these areas, but it seems to me that they are caught in this legislation.

There are many in the house who will say that that is fine, if there is a problem at a local country show, or at a major multicultural event—I have not heard of it, but if there is—then that needs to be addressed as well. I do not know whether the government had it in mind for it to be that extensive, but I think that members need to clearly appreciate that that is the effect that the legislation will have. As I say, there are many people on our side of the house who say, 'Well, so be it. If there is even one person who would attempt to do this outside an alcohol display area and tasting area at a local show, then we need to have this in place.'

The reason it is particularly important to understand the extent of the application of any law is that there is a direct consequence of something being very broad, as distinct from saying, 'Well, let's just put a limited effect on something.' That direct consequence is that, the broader it is, if it is to apply to many more people, places or events, then the responsibility of the government to ensure that people who are going to be affected by this law are informed, educated and, if necessary, trained to have an understanding of what their obligation is will be more expensive.

Now that, of course, always has to be balanced with the need for legislation and for the peculiar aspect of the legislation which has a higher good than the cost of applying it simply to a broad part of the community. Otherwise, the argument will always be just to apply this across the board. It would not have to be a licensed premises at all; it could just be anyone. We could just increase the penalty for anyone who has more than what is defined as below a commercial quantity of prohibited drugs—on our side that includes cannabis but, on the government's side, it is the other remaining controlled drugs—and we would simply have it apply to everybody and there would be no limit on licensed premises at all.

Is that not another argument that we would need to consider? Of course, it is, but remember, we are here today to deal with this piece of legislation because the Premier stood up in the election campaign and said he was going to get tough on making sure that we had safer streets and a community safety policy that was going to translate. We were going to get tough. It was like a war on traffickers at public events, but, in translation, it is now something quite different in the bill before us.

I conclude by saying that, if it works, it is worth it—the inconvenience, the cost, the restriction, the regulation is all worth it. I hope the government is right. I hope that the Premier's measures will make a difference. I have to say that I am sceptical, because if it was so important in the Premier's mind and so effective (as he presented to the people of South Australia during the election campaign as to what his planks of public policy were going to be in the application to this area of trafficking), then I suppose there is the logical question: what circumstances have there been that the current law had not applied, and if it is so damn good, where have they been in the past eight years to deal with this issue?

I do not know about other members, but for many years I have been hearing about young people at entertainment venues being presented with and induced into the purchasing of—and sometimes in exchange for favour rather than money—the receipt of and then consumption of these controlled drugs. It is not a new event that has occurred in 2010 that would warrant the Premier's announcement. So, I would simply pose the question: where has the Premier and his government been for the past eight years?

Consideration of the amendment relating to cannabis, as I understand it, has also been applied in the minds of others in another place, other than members of the opposition; and, via the Hon. Stephen Wade, we have had those discussions—'conversation' is the new word, I think, for these things—and we have ascertained that there is a broader concern about the exclusion of cannabis. That only confirms our commitment to ensuring that that exclusion is removed, and that if we are going to be effective and if this increase in penalty is going to make a scrap of difference, then it is going to have to apply to the most prolifically sold drug by traffickers in these circumstances.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (11:47): I am pleased to support the Controlled Substances (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, but we need to do so much more to deal with the issue of illicit drugs in our community. Constituents of all ages in my area have a deep concern about illicit drugs: the effect on the people who become addicted to illicit drugs, the effect on the people who may be taking them for the first time at parties or licensed venues and suffer the consequences of risky behaviour choices brought on by their drug use, and particularly the effect on family members who are affected in a negative way by illicit drug use.

It is particularly concerning for many young people in our community. Last week I was privileged to attend some sessions of the Youth Parliament, as were a number of other members of this house. I remember in the final session, which was also attended by the member for Hammond, the shadow minister for education and the shadow minister for health, one speaker, Ms Sam Mitchell, gave a very passionate contribution to the debate about the death of her cousin due to the dangerous driving on a country road of somebody under the influence of methamphetamines. Apparently, upon seeing a road train coming, the driver assumed that it was, in fact, a hallucination and so continued on regardless and heedless of the consequences, which had deadly, tragic consequences, particularly for the family member of that youth parliamentarian.

These stories are not isolated incidents. Illicit drugs wreak a tragic toll upon our community, and it is one that should be at the forefront of our minds. I am not sure that this bill is remotely enough in terms of what parliament needs to be doing and considering to address these concerns. I am very proud of my involvement in the previous federal government's comprehensive approach to drugs policy; I was an adviser in assisting with that policy, the Tough on Drugs policy. It was a comprehensive approach which dealt with the health side of matters in terms of rehabilitation of people who are addicted to illicit drugs.

It dealt with education, both through the schools and the nationwide social marketing and advertising campaigns, particularly the very successful Talking to Your Kids About Drugs national letterbox campaign. That campaign encouraged parents to take a more proactive approach in dealing with their own children's potential drug use or their exposure to illicit substances. Also, importantly, it gave a refreshed emphasis to the policing, which is important, both in terms of the resources available to police and in ensuring that dealers, in particular, are dealt with toughly by our courts.

This bill makes a contribution to that part of the Tough on Drugs approach, but so much more is needed, particularly in terms of the policing. The Howard government's Tough on Drugs approach was adopted in the late 1990s, and over the following decade, hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars was directed towards Australian Federal Police and Customs to deal with the responsibilities of the federal government in addressing the policing side of illicit drug use.

Over the same period of time, the state government has employed more police officers, and for that I am grateful. However, I draw to the attention of the house the extraordinarily increased demand on police forces, which have to deal with people who are addicted to illicit drugs now, as opposed to years ago. Overall, in many ways we have improved, and the Tough on Drugs strategy has been particularly effective in lowering overall drug use. In a little while, I will discuss how, despite that overall drop in drug use, the demands on police are still greater.

In terms of overall figures, we have seen that from 1998, which was the high point, marijuana use amongst Australians has dropped from 17.9 per cent to 9.1 per cent in 2007. The most recent Australian Institute of Health and Welfare survey in 2007 showed that only 9.1 per cent of Australians used marijuana in the 12 months before the survey, and that is a very significant drop, that is, from 17.9 per cent to 9.1 per cent. In the same time, we have seen heroin use drop from 0.8 per cent of the population using heroin in the previous 12 months in 1998 to 0.2 per cent in 2007, and that figure has been consistent for some years.

Clearly, a number of these approaches are working in terms of reducing the number of people in Australia who are using marijuana and cannabis, although cannabis is still the most significantly used drug in Australia. One critical figure I am very pleased with, although, again, it is not enough, is that there has been a huge reduction in accidental deaths from opiates, which has gone from a staggering 1,116 deaths in 1999 to 374 in 2005, and the numbers have continued to decline. One of the reasons, I think, for the lowering of overall drug use in Australia has been that the Tough on Drugs campaign and other educational approaches have reduced the acceptability of illicit drugs in the community.

According to the national secondary school survey, in 1996, 35 per cent of 12 to 17 year olds had tried cannabis in their lifetime, but a decade later, after the Tough on Drugs campaign, that figure had halved to 18 per cent. Again, in 1996, 11 per cent of our secondary students were smoking cannabis at least weekly, and by 2005 that had dropped to 4 per cent. So, it is clear that the overall figures are diminishing. Acceptance of illicit drug use in the community is decreasing, and that is a good thing, but there are a couple of significant concerns that lead to a need for more police resources.

In terms of the drugs that are not decreasing, we are talking about methamphetamines, cocaine and ecstasy. Of course, in Australia when we say 'ecstasy' we can be talking about anything. People selling pills in nightclubs are not going to labs and producing pure forms of methylenedioxymethamphetamine: they are cutting it with anything from hydrochloric acid to baking soda to ketamine to methamphetamines and marketing it as ecstasy. Of course, those other substances that are included in ecstasy tablets have significant health effects and cause significant behavioural changes in the users.

Methamphetamines (drugs like ice, base and speed) are much stronger and cause more significant behavioural changes in the users than any illicit drug that was previously widespread in our society. Just going back to cannabis which, as I said, 9.1 per cent of the Australian population have used in the past 12 months, we are not talking about the sort of bongs and joints that people may have been smoking 40 years ago.

Mr Goldsworthy: Pot.

Mr GARDNER: Pot, as the member for Kavel describes it—I was a bit too young during the sixties! We are talking about cannabis that has a significantly higher THC count, is significantly more toxic and has significantly greater health and behavioural effects on the user which, of course, translate into terrible consequences for those around them. Cannabis leads to depression, psychosis and schizophrenia in many of its users, and this is particularly exacerbated by the more toxic nature of the plant that is available to people today.

When I was working with the federal government on drugs policy, I spent a lot of time visiting drug rehabilitation facilities around Australia. One that I particularly remember is the We Help Ourselves facility (WHO) in Sydney. Its executive director, Garth Popple, who is a very well respected and highly regarded leader in this area, took me around and introduced me to a number of users and the people who worked with them. They were talking about the different effects, in terms of the way that users behave, of heroin use as opposed to methamphetamine and ice use.

Many members present would be familiar with the extraordinary fear in the community based on psychotic attacks by ice addicts over the past few years which did not happen previously. Heroin addiction is a terrible addiction that destroys individuals and leads them to criminal behaviour in terms of theft and assault and battery, in order to get money to get their next fix. Methamphetamines produce all of those same problems and more, in that a person who is high on ice is often quite devoid of human function and human compassion, does not know what is going on and is imbued with incredible amounts of adrenaline, strength and loss of feeling, and we have seen the tragic results that that creates.

When I was in the We Help Ourselves facility we went into one of the groups of people who were in rehabilitation. There was a discussion with about 12 of them. They were talking about how many of them were there for heroin, getting over an ice addiction or a combination of various addictions. According to my guide, I was told that, previously, perhaps five or 10 years earlier, the majority would have been there for heroin addiction. They were very placid; they were very depressed, but it was a completely different world.

On the tour that I was on in 2006, I think nine out of the 12 were there getting over ice addiction. For police having to deal with these people, the result is that it is a much tougher gig, and we need to consider that when we are talking about the resources. In 1993 only 2 per cent of the population had tried methamphetamines and 0.5 per cent had tried cocaine (which leads to similar results). In 2007 that figure had increased to 3.9 per cent. Many more people are taking these particularly dangerous drugs that lead to particularly bad consequences, and the purity of these drugs available on the streets now, as opposed to 20 years ago, is remarkably higher.

From my point of view, in terms of this bill, where we are increasing at the margins the penalties for dealers of small amounts of these substances, I support the bill and its intent, but so much more needs to be done, particularly in terms of resources to police and agencies within police that specifically deal with drug-related crime. As the Howard government did, we also need to increase our support for education and health.

Antonio Maria Costa, the Executive Director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, visited Australia at the beginning of 2007. We met with him, and he said that Australia was leading the world in terms of the balance of its approach to drugs. We have not seen in Australia the extraordinary increase in cocaine use that we have seen in Europe and the extraordinary increase in crack cocaine use that we have seen in America.

Customs and the AFP are working very effectively to stop the importation of opiates and organic drugs. It is not perfect, but it is working pretty well. One of our major concerns is the home-grown materials—the cannabis grown hydroponically and methamphetamines created in people's backyard drug labs. It is those two drugs—the highly toxic cannabis and the backyard laboratory methamphetamines—that we need to particularly concern ourselves with. It is a great defect in this bill that it does not treat cannabis in a serious way. There is no change to the penalty applied to cannabis dealers as there is for other drugs. I hope dearly that the upper house will consider amending the bill to that effect.

It is nonsensical to me that cannabis is excluded when it is the most widely used drug and it is a drug which is increasing in toxicity and which leads to depression, psychosis and schizophrenia, and, when taken in conjunction with drugs such as ice and speed, leads to even more significant effects. In producing this policy of seeking safer streets and community safety, I applaud the intent that the government clearly has in seeking safer streets and community safety—and tackling drug-related crime and drug use is very important in relation to that.

However, I conclude by saying that the government will not make a dent on the terrible effects of drug-related crime and drug abuse unless we increase our resources for policing and we work harder through the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy to deal more effectively with the police, health and education aspects of drug abuse. In terms of this bill specifically, I urge the government and the upper house to consider amending the bill to ensure that cannabis, along with other drugs, is included in its application.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:04): I want to add to the comments made by the member for Bragg, who is leading the opposition on this bill. My history in relation to the issue of drug use is well documented in this place. I have always been opposed to drugs, particularly in regard to drug driving. I introduced on two occasions a bill to bring in drug testing of drivers in South Australia; both attempts failed. The second attempt was followed quickly by the government's own bill, which was almost exactly the same as mine. So, there has been some politics, but in the end we get there. Anything we can do to arrest this problem should be addressed.

The opposition supports the bill, with the proviso of that significant amendment. I would not support anything unless that amendment is agreed to. I hope the government will look at that amendment in this place before it goes to the other house, because I think it is a travesty that this house would allow a bill to go from this place without that amendment in it.

It is all about a new offence to be created dealing with trafficking in controlled drugs around licensed premises, especially nightclubs, hotels and the rest of it. We already have high penalties for the trafficking of controlled drugs—$500,000 and life imprisonment for a large commercial quantity. A commercial quantity carries a fine of $200,000 and 25 years gaol, and below a commercial quantity is $50,000 and 10 years. We support this part of the legislation; it will impose a higher maximum penalty for below a commercial quantity in the prescribed area—$75,000 or 15 years, which is up from $50,000, which is quite a significant increase.

The bill specifically excludes cannabis from the aggravated offence. Why is this? Apparently we are told by the Department for Families and Communities that we have to be cautious about criminalisation of young people and minor operators in drug distribution. Well, is not this a contradiction to the known cause of the drug problem? People entering a life of drugs usually start by taking cannabis. We need to put in a huge deterrent up-front to kill off the problem before a bad habit starts, namely, cannabis addiction. It moves on to the harder drugs. Statistics tell us that most hard drug users started their addiction on cannabis. A deterrent here via this penalty could be likened to a bushfire: put out the spark before it escalates into a raging bushfire.

We all have bad habits; most of them are manageable. Apart from smoking, drugs are the most addictive thing, and we all know what it is like to get rid of very bad habits—mine is food, obviously.

The Hon. R.B. Such: What about collecting vintage wheels?

Mr VENNING: That is a habit I can control, or my wife can control it by watching the cheque book. We all have our foibles and habits. Everybody has a habit but, if yours is drugs, I am sorry. I have spent so much time with my own family—first, it was smoking as young kids and now drugs—talking and talking to the grandchildren about drugs, drugs, drugs; brainwashing, you could say. It is an insidious thing and we see what happens; the end result is appalling.

In my time in this place I have made many speeches on South Australia's drug problem. I was here when we allowed the cultivation of 10 cannabis plants to be an expiable offence—thanks to the Australian Democrats—and I can well recall a strong personal discussion I had with the Hon. Michael Elliott after his trip to Sweden about our draconian restrictions on cannabis, marijuana, Indian hemp, call it what you like. We saw what happened: Adelaide soon become the drug capital of Australia, and it certainly was. Look at the drug problem in Mexico today, where thousands of people have been killed in drug wars over the last 20 years.

We need to stamp this out in every way we can. My attitude on drug driving is well known, and I just highlighted that a while ago. It was crazy, because we knew that many people were driving under the effect of drugs. We were hitting alcohol very hard under drink driving offences, but we were not doing anything about drug drivers. In fact, when you combine the two you have a very serious problem.

My concern, driving more than 60,000 kilometres a year, is that the person coming down the road towards me—or worse, towards my family—is in control of that vehicle, is capable of driving that vehicle and is not affected by drugs, alcohol or both. That is what got me active in this, because I am as vulnerable as anyone. I am on the road all the time, as is my family and as are most country people. They just trust that the person coming down the road is in control of or can control the vehicle they are driving. It is your life or theirs, so we need to stamp this out.

I note the Hon. Ann Bressington's intention to remove the exclusion of cannabis if we cannot do it here. I note that the grounds for the aggravated offence to cover cannabis include:

Trafficking in cannabis is illegal and should be treated consistently with other illegal drugs.

Distribution of cannabis at licensed venues encourages the mixing of cannabis and alcohol, which may produce unpredictable reactions and diminish control [as I just said].

While links between cannabis and mental ill health are not clear, cannabis use should be discouraged because it has been shown to have the following long-term effects:

increased risk of respiratory disease associated with the smoking, including cancer;

decreased memory and learning abilities; and

decreased motivation in areas such as study, work or concentration.

Even with cannabis included in the aggravated offence, cannabis would still be prosecuted at a lower level than the other drugs. The 2007 National Drug Strategy Household Survey shows that, while public support for increased penalties for cannabis is about 20 per cent below that of other drugs, it has increased by 5 per cent to 63 per cent in recent years.

As I just said, I have tried to get used to living with drugs in society. I am sorry, I cannot get used to it. It is very uneasy to be out in the public knowing that there are crazed people doing absolutely crazy things, such as road rage and home invasions. What do you call it where people smash into houses? These people are usually crazed and under the effects of drugs. You would normally trust common decency and normal behavioural problems to protect you in your home, but when you get people totally under the effects of drugs, who are crazed out and who will do anything, well, we all should feel very vulnerable. I am very concerned about that.

A prescribed area in this legislation is detailed here, and I am curious at the last category. The minister may wish to clarify this. The last category states:

Premises at which members of the public are gathered for a public entertainment.

That is an extremely open interpretation. Any interpretation could be given to include almost anything, even church. Does this include open-air rock concerts? Good question. People are gathered together for entertainment—not in a normal licensed premise, usually out in a paddock, a park or something. That is a very open categorisation.

I note the speeches made last week during the Youth Parliament. I heard some of the debate, and it got pretty emotional. In fact, there was sobbing in the corridor outside here. I came down to see what could be done, and I just decided, well, there was nothing I could do. I join the member from Morialta in noting the speech made by Miss Samantha Mitchell from Freeling. She lives in my electorate and, in fact, she is my trainee. I congratulate her on a fine speech. She really did enjoy her time here. I congratulate all those who had anything to do with organising the Youth Parliament, because it is a fantastic experience for these people.

I am sure that, not just for Samantha but for so many others, there is a future there for those people. I feel very happy that there is a future with these people, and I hope that many of them will step up. As the member for Bragg said in her speech, this sort of thing is hard law; it is tough to do this legislation. It is difficult but, as she said, if it works it is worth it. We support this legislation with that amendment.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (12:14): I also indicate my support for this bill, however, as with previous speakers on our side, I also question just how sincere this Rann government is about doing anything apart from paying a bit of lip service and looking at the penalties. You seriously wonder where it is all going to go.

There are a number of us here in this place around my age who recall very clearly when marijuana became the flavour of the month, so to speak, in the sixties, along with LSD, and those who recall the Vietnam War quite clearly—the first television war in recorded history, really, where we saw it a day or two later. However, there has not been a lot said about the incredible numbers of American soldiers particularly who were savagely impacted on particularly by LSD during the Vietnam War.

The attrition rate from drugs in that war was absolutely appalling. I have not done the homework to go back and source all those numbers because I simply did not have time this morning. However, the sight of these soldiers, airmen, sailors—servicemen from the US particularly—remains ingrained in my mind. We were not immune to it: let's be quite clear about that. The Vietnam War sailed along on highly 'influenced' service personnel in the US forces. They had to send thousands of them home as addicted to LSD, marijuana and all sorts of things.

Of course, we all like to look back at Woodstock. I was not there, although I would not have minded being, actually, because it was pretty good music, but those of us who can recall Woodstock quite clearly remember the great haze of marijuana smoke that floated over Woodstock for the days that it took place. I see a few eyes raised around the chamber, but it was quite clear. My generation grew up with the impact of those drugs and they have not gone away. It has only got worse and, as other speakers have said in this place today, we have graduated to such nasties as ice, methamphetamines and others.

I heard the member for Schubert say that we have got to stop this. You are not going to stop it. You are absolutely not going to stop it because of these absolute mongrels who peddle drugs around the world and these mongrels who peddle drugs in South Australia, in Adelaide and the absolute mongrels who peddle drugs in my own electorate. I am not going to hide away from that; they are extremely active down on the South Coast and they are active on Kangaroo Island. They are the lowest form of life and, as far as I am concerned, they should be exterminated. I have absolutely no time for them.

I see what the police have to deal with. I am aware, from discussions with South Australian police officers, what they have to deal with where kids have been hit by drugs. One of those times when they are out in full force trying to stop the proliferation of drugs is the annual schoolies festival in Victor Harbor where we have around 10,000 young people come down, and these parasites who trade in drugs are active there.

The police do a wonderful job in tracking it down as much as possible. We have around a hundred police officers down there and some of them who work in this line are referred to colloquially as dogs because they get down there and get dirty to find out what is going on. The more they exterminate and lock up, the better, as far as I am concerned.

That brings me back to the substance of the legislation. The substance of the legislation is in answer to a government election commitment particularly to do with licensed premises and nightclubs, etc., and wherever people—not always but, in the main, young people—get out and about to have a good time. You can get as silly as a fowl on alcohol, as you well know, Madam Deputy Speaker. We used to get quite foolish on Southwark 'Green Death' bitter beer. That used to do us, but I have never, ever been tempted to try drugs in any way shape or form. I do not do it these days, but I have been made a big enough fool on alcohol without going to drugs.

For those of you in this place with young children or who will have young children, the great challenge of your life is to raise your children with a sense of values so that they understand what an enormous amount of damage drugs can do. They will be tempted, be in no doubt. If you have children now (nought to five or five to 10), you can rest assured that by the time they are teenagers or in their 20s, there will be some other horrendous type of drug around or a finetuned marijuana, which is even stronger now than it used to be; the term 'dope' is widely used. They will be exposed to all these things so, if this bill in a small way assists the future generations or the current generation to get through this landmine, I would be more than happy.

I suspect it will have minimal impact. I suspect it will not be tough enough, but this side of the house has no problem supporting it—it is another way of going about business. These drugs permeate society and families. They destroy families. I have seen the product of drugs, heroin, marijuana, etc. on families throughout my life and throughout my electorate and district. I have seen what happens; I know what happens. I am a bit closer to it than I want to be quite frankly, and I will go no further on that. It has always been sold with marijuana that it doesn't hurt you. I can introduce you to people in my electorate who have been smoking marijuana for 20 or 30 years and I tell you that they are cooked in the head.

They are absolutely pathetic cases. They still think they are firing well, but it is disastrous for them. It has a disastrous outcome for their families and it saddens me in a great way. I know people who started smoking marijuana in the sixties who still smoke it and they just add to the cost of everybody else—to the taxpayer—through health costs and pensions, because they cannot work. Their health has deteriorated to the extent where they are just a severe drain on society. They will not go away. In many cases they live out a normal lifespan but they are contributing absolutely nothing to society.

I have worked in shearing sheds where shearers—and I make the point strongly that it is only a small minority—have had a smoke of dope at lunchtime or at afternoon smoko. It is taken as par for the course. I have also worked in shearing sheds where some of the workers who are alcoholics have a beer for morning smoko, a couple for lunch and a couple for afternoon smoko. A few of us feel like it from time to time but you don't do it. We need to draw the line wherever possible and whenever possible, particularly with the hard drugs, and let's not convince ourselves that alcohol is not a drug or that nicotine is not a drug. These are drug habits.

The member for Morialta very passionately pointed out during his work in a previous life for the former federal government that he has been around and has seen these sad cases; he has seen what it can do to people and the violent behaviour that gives some people superhuman strengths. I do not know whether anybody in this chamber had the time last night to watch, as I did, the story on Four Corners about Alice Springs and the four or five young people who were put in gaol for manslaughter of an Aboriginal man last year. I was transfixed by that. That was purely a case of alcohol taking over. Heavens knows what else went with it but it was alcohol—a drug.

The effort by the government in bringing in this legislation tries to raise the penalties for these drugs and licensed premises, etc. I pick up on the point the member for Schubert made a while ago about point number two of the prescribed areas. I do not know where you draw the line. It is not prescriptive enough, in my view; it is very open-ended.

Interestingly, I had my youngest son at the Clipsal on the Friday when members were invited to take family members and guests. My youngest son likes a beer on a hot day—or a cold day, let me tell you; at 22 he enjoys life. I had two business people from my electorate and my youngest son, and the police came through the corporate area in the state suite with a dog. They actually pulled my son to one side and he went bright red. He was horrified. He was absolutely horrified.

They pulled him to one side and they patted him down, because the dog had detected drugs on him. They took his wallet, they searched him inside out and poor old Patrick was highly embarrassed. You never know 100 per cent, but I do know that he does not touch drugs, as I said. He had been to WOMAD the week before and, Patrick being Patrick and being 22, he wore the same jeans to the Clipsal as he wore to WOMAD. In fact, it was a good lesson for him on washing clothes.

When the police finally worked through this with him—because he had nothing on him—they said, 'Have you been anywhere?' and he said, 'I was at WOMAD last week.' They said, 'Did you have these pants on?' 'Yes, I did.' He said there was dope everywhere. The smoke from the marijuana had permeated his clothes and the sniffer dog picked it up at the Clipsal.

Mr Goldsworthy: A week later?

Mr PENGILLY: Yes, a week later. It was a valuable lesson for my youngest son in what happens. Full credit to the police. I think the rest of us got away with it, but it absolutely frightened the daylights out of my youngest son, but where does it stop?

Mr Pederick interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: Don't you worry about the old man. I use that as an example of just where this stuff is. We rave about WOMAD, but Patrick said that the marijuana there was in an absolute thick haze. If the police had been operating at WOMAD—I presume they were—they probably would have arrested 20 per cent of the partygoers or done most of them over the same way. I go back to my point: those of you with younger families and children who have to bring them up and bring them through life, do all you can to guide them in the right direction, because they are our future. We can make laws in this place; it is up to the authorities to carry those laws out and what comes out of it.

To wrap up, I point out that we are never going to fix this problem. Sometimes there are elements of sharia law that have a bit to be said for them, and you probably still get drug problems in those countries with sharia law—I do not know. I have no great desire to visit them, quite honestly. There is no question that we will support this bill but, as the member for Bragg said, this is one small step but it does not go far enough. I think South Australians have had an absolute gutful of Rann spin, and we want heavy sentences and heavy penalties applying. Whether this is heavy enough I do not know. With those few words I once again indicate my support for the bill and hope it goes speedily through both houses.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (12:28): I thank the Opposition Whip for allowing me to speak now. This bill is an extremely important bill for everybody in this place and every South Australian. The opposition is supporting this bill. We also have the amendment to increase the penalties for trafficking marijuana. We do that because marijuana is not a soft drug; it is not a drug that should be tolerated by anybody in this place or even people out in the general public as a recreational drug. In fact, I hate the term 'recreational drugs'. These are illegal drugs. They are extremely toxic, dangerous chemicals.

The pharmacology of the chemicals that are involved in marijuana, heroin, ice and methamphetamines is very complex. The effect of these drugs on your body is extremely complex. If people had any comprehension of the complex chemical interactions going on in their bodies, whether it is tobacco, alcohol or the illegal drugs that we are concentrating on here, they would be absolutely amazed and very worried, because a number of the effects are permanent and irreparable. In many cases, they are cumulative, so you might feel fine for a while but, after a period of time—months or years—using some of these drugs, you will pay the price; there is no escape from that.

At the moment, it is not only individuals who are paying the price but also the community. Every year in South Australia, we are paying millions of dollars to keep people in the mental health system and in the prison system who have been put there as a result of drug abuse, and that drug abuse is getting worse and worse. We cannot tolerate a soft approach to drugs. There cannot be a soft approach at all. There cannot be any discussion about recreational drugs or the recreational use of drugs; it has to be a hard line.

We have to make sure that our children understand the dangers they are putting themselves in. We need to make sure that people who are supplying drugs to our children—adults who should know better—have the full penalty forced upon them by the sort of legislation that is before us today. It does not go far enough with marijuana, but it goes a long way to achieving some decent penalties in other areas of trafficable drugs in commercial quantities. What we really need to do is make sure that we have the police force out there to catch people who are trafficking drugs. To have the penalties in place is no good at all unless you have the vehicle to catch people who are peddling drugs and people who are using drugs.

We heard the Premier talk about increased detection of drug driving the other day—thanks to the member for Schubert, who pushed this issue and worked really hard on it a number of years ago. The government adopted it, and it was a good move. If we go back to the Bannon days, when they were soft on drugs, marijuana was seen as a recreational drug. They allowed more and more plants to be grown. It was a crazy attitude back then. I am sure there are still members in this place who were associated with that who would look back with shame, because it was a shameful thing to do. We are paying for the consequences for our tolerance of drug use and our acceptance of recreational drugs. It is completely wrong.

I will not say much more about the individual effects of drugs. We have heard from the member for Morialta and other members in this place of their experiences. Those experiences can be told over and over again in this place. The important thing is to get this bill through as quickly as possible and to get the legislation enacted as quickly as possible, not for it to sit languishing. We need to make sure that the penalties are put in place and that our hardworking police officers are given the resources to make sure that they are able to enforce this legislation. That is the crucial part.

We need to prevent people from self harm. Unfortunately, people just do not understand the damage they are doing to themselves. I wish this bill speedy passage through this place. I hope that the government comes to its senses and agrees to the amendment proposed by the opposition recognising marijuana as the serious drug that it is and the damage that it is doing, putting it with the other drugs, and providing penalties for those trafficking in these very dangerous substances.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:33): I, too, rise today on behalf of the opposition to support the Controlled Substances (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2010. I note that the bill seeks to amend section 32 of the Controlled Substances Act 1984, to create a new aggravated offence of trafficking controlled drugs in or around licensed premises and entertainment venues, and to effect some miscellaneous technical amendments. It is well known that licensed premises, in particular nightclubs, have traditionally been a prime location for dealers to sell drugs to young people who might be vulnerable because of alcohol consumption. The object of the new offence is to impose a higher penalty and provide a greater deterrent for drug dealing in licensed premises.

As the law stands at the moment, trafficking of controlled drugs is defined as selling or intending to sell drugs, and intention to sell is presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, if the person has a trafficable quantity of a controlled drug. The maximum penalties, as they stand, are: for a large commercial quantity it is $500,000, and there can be a penalty of life imprisonment; for a commercial quantity it is $200,000 or 25 years; and below a commercial quantity it is $50,000 or 10 years' imprisonment. If this bill passes through the parliament the new offence would impose a higher maximum penalty for below commercial quantity trafficking if the trafficking occurs in a prescribed area. The fine would be $75,000 or 15 years.

I also want to make some comments regarding the amendment that the Liberal Party will support in the upper house to include cannabis in this legislation. We believe that it should be listed with other drugs as part of the aggravated offence conditions. The grounds for this include that trafficking cannabis is illegal; it is an illegal drug and should be treated consistently with other illegal drugs. The distribution of cannabis at licensed venues encourages the mixing of cannabis and alcohol, which can produce unpredictable reactions and diminish control.

It is certainly obvious to me that there are mental health issues related to cannabis. Some say that there have not been clear links made in that regard, but I believe that there is plenty of evidence out there of the suffering that all illegal drugs, including cannabis, have caused. Marijuana, from what you hear anecdotally around the place, seems to be readily available. It is a so-called recreational drug. I do not like the word 'recreational' either, as other members have indicated in this house, because it is an illegal drug. Marijuana has been used for many years, and I think it has destroyed many lives.

A lot of marijuana users will try to tell you that it does not hurt you and that it is nowhere near as bad as alcohol. Well, I appreciate that alcohol in large volumes is not good for you either, but I have certainly seen the effects of drugs on someone who has taken them for a long time. I have mentioned this person in this house before. One of my acquaintances, who was an upwardly mobile young citizen and very successful in his line of work, is now essentially a babbling mess. He is not much older than me, so quite young.

Mr Pengilly: Just a lad.

Mr PEDERICK: Just a lad. In my mind he is just a lad because I grew up with this bloke. It is tragic to see, and there are plenty of other people like him around the place. I recall doing a bit of work as a contractor on the Adelaide to Melbourne rail line standardisation project. We worked ahead of schedule, and the operators (I suppose it was ARTC at the time) put on a few refreshments at the Tintinara Hotel, which was gratefully received by the workers, I can assure you.

Some of the workers on the job were bits of characters, and one of them said to me while we were having a beer, 'I've got some gear that will make you forget the next three days.' I said, 'Well, I don't want to forget the next three days. I've got to be home'—because it was Easter time—'putting my crop in on the farm.' This is the issue. People out there get hold of these drugs and, apart from the fact that they are destroying their own lives, too many of them decide they will distribute these drugs, sell them, thinking they are making an easy dollar; so we need to do all we can to pull up this scourge in society.

It is an absolute disgrace what happens to young kids, kids who think, 'This is a bit of a spin, we'll go and do this.' You hear too many stories of people who have tried different illegal drugs and they do not get a second chance. They do not wake up, especially when they are mixed with alcohol. It is well known that people can go out to nightspots and they almost get run over with people offering them drugs. I remember in the 1980s I was in America. You just cross the street there—and it would not really matter where you were; I think it was in New York this particular time—and someone coming the other way says, 'Would you like some gear?' It is unbelievable.

It is a disgrace what happens to people in society. It is disgraceful what the dealers are doing. You only have to look at what goes on overseas with Colombian and Mexican drug lords, and to what efforts they will go to promote their evil trade. Just the other day at entertainment venues, people were being gunned down indiscriminately because of these people. It is an absolute disgrace. We must do everything we can, as far as we can in this legislature in South Australia, to pull up drugs where we can, because we have people coming through—I have young sons—and we need to look after them. I commend the bill.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (12:41): It is interesting that the government claims that the bill implements an election commitment that it made during the 2010 election. Just two weeks after, we saw them trying to sneak out of an election commitment that they made—copying us here in the Liberal Party—exempting apprentices and trainees from payroll tax. That was a significant promise that we made in the lead-up to the election. The government, three days out from the election, realised that it was a damn good policy, realised that it was making traction amongst those who really matter in the community and so they matched it. They said that it was going to start three weeks ago, that is on 1 July 2010, but then a memo went out to employers on 5 July telling them that, due to the heavy legislative program of the parliament—and I think I—

Mr BIGNELL: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Unley, I think we have a point of order. Would you mind taking your seat?

Mr BIGNELL: The point of order is that this has nothing to do with the debate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a touch of that, but perhaps the member for Unley is getting to the debate.

Mr PISONI: This has everything to do with the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, because this is about the way the Rann government operates. This is the way the Rann government says one thing in an election climate—just like it made all sorts of promises on the Adelaide Oval—and then when it comes to pay for them, to deliver them, it will find all sorts of excuses, including making up one. I was in bed by 9 o'clock when parliament sat on most nights since the election, and yet this government—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Unley, just to interrupt you for a minute, you have been speaking for two minutes and everyone else seems to have been talking about controlled substances. Are you going to be talking about controlled substances at all? I would draw you back to that, if at all possible.

Mr PISONI: I just ask if you can control your urge to interrupt—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not think you need to be rude, member for Unley. It is not controlling my need. Can you sit down, please, member for Unley, while I am speaking? It is not an urge to interrupt, it is the fact that you have been speaking for two minutes and, during that time, you have not addressed the substance of the debate. That is my job here and I am sorry that it angers you. If you could get back to the substance of the debate, that would be fantastic.

Mr PISONI: It doesn't anger me, but it appears as though my behaviour angers you.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Indeed. Do not push it, member for Unley.

Mr PISONI: The reason I am using this line of debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that this is typical of the way the Rann government operates. This is an important bill and we support it today because we know the dangers of drugs and how peddling drugs is the lowest act. That does not cost the government any money so it is happy to honour that election commitment but, when it comes to an election commitment that is just as important to young people in South Australia, that is, making it easier for them to get their start in life with an apprenticeship or traineeship by removing the 4.9 per cent burden on employers employing apprentices, we see a delay, with an erroneous excuse that there is not enough time in the legislative program to do it. So there is my link, madam. I say that because it has angered many people in the small business community—those very people who have concerns about drug use in the workplace and amongst their staff in recreational activities. That is why we support this bill to make the supply of drugs in designated areas an aggravated offence.

It intrigues me that cannabis is exempt. I know there is a very heavy penalty for aggravated selling of drugs in large commercial quantities, that is, $500,000 or life imprisonment, but it is interesting that for below a commercial quantity of drugs we see that figure is down to $50,000 and 10 years. I cannot help but wonder why we have removed cannabis when a description of a large quantity of commercial cannabis is 100 plants. You can imagine that the only way someone is going to sell that quantity in a nightclub is to convert the pie cart to the 'high' cart. That is the only way we could do that.

Most of the people who sell cannabis at these venues would, of course, be selling the lesser number of plants that does not come anywhere near that heavy penalty. We must send the same message to those who deal in cannabis as to those who deal in amphetamines and heroin, that is, we do not want our children being fed such drugs or material. We have to send a consistent message, and that is why we will introduce amendments to bring cannabis into line with the same processes that are in place for heroin and amphetamines.

The way that marijuana is sold these days, it is much stronger and concentrated, because of the very laws that decriminalised marijuana and made South Australia the drug capital of the world. Our very own Premier, Mike Rann, advised the government at the time this was brought in, and I wonder why he advised the then Labor government to do that and now stands here and says he is tough on drugs. We are the drug capital of the world because of the actions of Mike Rann as an adviser. He was the one who was advising the government at the time.

We still see the legacy of the Cheech and Chong era in this government today. Cheech and Chong have fallen right out of fashion with parents and school communities today. They may have been a novelty and great for votes back in the 1980s, but no-one I know has hired a Cheech and Chong movie for a very long time. I think that is because it is no longer relevant. People now know the dangers of cannabis and that is why we believe—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

Mr PISONI: As the member for Bragg tells me, Glenside Hospital is full of victims of cannabis. It is a consistent message that we need to send those who peddle in drugs, those who want our children to be their customers, those who want to make money out of the misery of others. Our message must be consistent: you do it, you will get caught and you will be punished.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (12:50): Madam Deputy Speaker, you can rest assured I will stick to the substance of the debate, which is about peddling of illegal substances. I might say that the perpetrators of these heinous crimes are a blight on our whole society. They destroy the lives of many of our young people and their families, and, of course, they impose a great cost on our society when we must look after those people who have been destroyed by drugs.

The one point that I would make is that I do support the fact that cannabis should also be included in this bill. As far as I am concerned, 30 years ago cannabis probably did not have a great effect on people, but, with the selective breeding that has happened for many years now, the level of alkaloids in cannabis is much higher than it once was. There are quite a few people in our communities who are vulnerable to those higher levels of alkaloids in cannabis and we are now seeing many who are affected by psychosis and schizophrenia and other mental illnesses. That is mainly because of those high levels of alkaloids in cannabis. As far as I am concerned, cannabis is an illegal drug so we should be applying the same measures to that as we are to other drugs as far as peddling them anywhere, but particularly outside venues where young people gather. I certainly support the bill and the intentions of the bill but I will also be supporting the fact that cannabis should be included.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Tourism) (12:52): First of all, I thank all members for their contributions. I guess it was a little bit odd that we spent most of our time debating a matter that is not formally before us yet, namely an amendment, and, without being critical about it, it possibly might have been helpful in terms of having the context of this debate a little more fully explored in this chamber. Nevertheless, I think I heard enough to get the gist of what the honourable members opposite are talking about. I understand the point and, now that that point has been made, I will certainly reflect on it and we will see what transpires elsewhere.

Having said that, I do appreciate the support of the honourable members opposite, in particular the honourable member for Bragg, whose remarks were very well thought through. The interesting matter about this—and the honourable member for Bragg really explored a bit of a philosophical point here about the whole issue of crime and punishment. The question is, does punishment represent a deterrent? I guess if you follow that down the track, you could ask why we do a number of things or, indeed, why the opposition sees any merit in including cannabis in a regime of more serious penalties. We sort of disappear into a bit of a circular argument there. It is not an argument that should not be touched upon, it is not a silly argument, because there are legitimate questions about what effect in reality an adjustment of the punishment regime has.

I am not sure any of us knows the answer to that question, but, seeing that we are legislators and not part of the executive arm of government in the sense of being police officers, what we can do is limited to changes in the law, I guess. The honourable member also raised a question about what sort of information there was, by way of background, supporting the fact that there are things going on out there which should be the subject of enhanced concern. I can indicate to the honourable member that I have been advised that SAPOL has said that since 2006-07 there had been a 179 per cent increase in detections on apprehension reports for drug-related offences in licensed premises.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Indeed. The point is that obviously statistics can be made to say or represent any number of things. It could also be that the increased policing activity by the police in some of these areas is actually revealing more without there being necessarily an increased prevalence of the substances. So, that is an ambiguous bit of information in the sense that what we can derive from that is a matter, I guess, for all of us. It does suggest that, in a very crude way, policing is finding more of this; whether that is because there is more there or they are looking better is difficult to say.

I appreciate that all of the members of the parliament who have spoken so far are genuinely concerned about the issue of drugs in the community and, in particular, about people who are consuming alcohol in these sorts of party settings, if I can put it that way, being subjected to that. I take the member for Bragg's point that, at the end of this process, enforcement becomes an important issue.

The only thing I would like to say on enforcement is that, as members would be aware, the government has committed to increasing the number of police officers yet again. There has already been a substantial increase in the number of police officers out and about on the beat, and other pieces of legislation were foreshadowed by the Premier and other ministers prior to the March election—for example, in relation to the carrying of knives and other things—all of which, I think, need to be seen as part of a mosaic of measures, of which this is one, that will make it more difficult for the criminal elements, whether they are drug traffickers or some other form of ne'er-do-well, to go about their business without being apprehended.

The people who are selling these things quite possibly are carrying knives, for instance, or other weapons. They are detected through that means, and it leads on to their being convicted of carrying these substances. Again, I appreciate the support other members are giving to the bill in this house. I understand the point members are making about cannabis, and I guess we will have to see what happens in the other place—whether the bill goes through in its present form or whether, as has been suggested by the member for Bragg, a substantial number of people in the other place form a different view. I guess we will deal with that if and when that emerges. So, I thank you all very much for your support for the bill.

Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining stages.


[Sitting suspended from 12:58 to 14:00]


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