- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Council
- 10 May 2006
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Amendment Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 46 of 54
| Next Item »
Page: 22901
In Committee
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [8.57 p.m.]: I move Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 1:
No. 1 Page 3, schedule 1 [1], lines 4-6. Omit all words on those lines.
This amendment refers to page 3, item [1] which uses the vague words:
Insert "or a clinical trial" after "study" wherever occurring.
The Christian Democratic Party has endeavoured to find out what the clinical trial is about but has not got any satisfactory answers. As honourable members know, widespread debate was held a year ago on proposals for a trial to supply heroin to addicts as opposed to the supply of needles in the Kings Cross injecting room. Some people—I believe wrongly—propose a trial involving the actual supply of heroin. That is, the Government would become the dealer, the pusher. We are not saying that that is the nature of the clinical trial referred to, because we cannot find out exactly what is to be trialled. To remove any doubt about the matter, I have moved the amendment to remove the words from the bill.
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [8.59 p.m.]: The Government accepts the Christian Democratic Party amendment. For the purpose of the record—as Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and I have discussed on a number of occasions—the exemption for clinical trials is not included with cannabis or heroin in mind. All the exemption would have done is provide consistency with the current provisions in the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act in relation to scientific research, instruction, study or analysis. The exemption would not even have given New South Wales the power to authorise actual clinical trials, set up a separate clinical trial regime, or weaken the stringent standards of current clinical trials as provided by the Commonwealth Therapeutic Goods Administration.
While the concerns expressed are, in the Government's view, totally unfounded and reflect a lack of faith in the Commonwealth therapeutic goods regulatory regime, given that they would unnecessarily delay the passage of this important bill and were clearly unduly concerning many members of the community, the Government has taken the view that the Christian Democratic Party amendment has merit and will accept it.
The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [9.01 p.m.]: The Opposition likewise will support the amendment proposed by the Christian Democratic Party. We have the same concerns as the Christian Democratic Party on this issue.
Amendment agreed to.
The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [9.02 p.m.], by leave: I move Opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2 in globo:
No. 1 Page 4, schedule 1 [8], proposed section 24 (3A), lines 25-30. Omit all words on those lines.
No. 2 Page 4, schedule 1 [8], lines 36-38. Omit the following:
or
(b) is satisfied that the defence referred to in subsection (3A) has been made out,
The Opposition is very supportive of the bill's creation of a new offence of "exposing a child to the manufacturing or production of illegal drugs". Specifically, the bill makes it an offence for a person who manufactures or produces, or who knowingly takes part in the manufacture or production of, a prohibited drug, to expose a child—defined as being a person under the age of 16 years—to the manufacturing or production process, or to substances being stored for use in that manufacturing or production process.
Clearly the Government regards this new offence, the purpose of which is to provide protection to children from exposure to the production of illegal drugs, as very important, because it then goes on to provide some very hefty penalties. Provision is made for a penalty of 2,400 penalty units, currently $264,000, or imprisonment for 18 years, or both. In addition, for an aggravated form of this offence where the drug produced is not less than the commercial quantity, provision is made for a penalty of 4,200 penalty units, currently $462,000, or imprisonment for 25 years, or both. If the offence involves not less than the large commercial quantity, then the penalty is increased to 6,000 penalty units, currently $660,000, or life imprisonment, or both. The Opposition agrees that hefty penalties are in order for this offence, which is a very serious one.
But then, for reasons best known to itself, the Government goes on to allow a defence to a prosecution for the manufacture and production of prohibited drugs in the presence of children if the defendant "establishes that the exposure of the child to the prohibited drug manufacturing or production process or to substances being stored for use in that manufacturing process or production process, did not endanger the health or safety of the child." Having legislated for a new offence, the Government then rips a gigantic hole right in the middle of it, providing an escape hatch for drug criminals. It is like milking the cow and then kicking over the can of milk.
We do not need convictions for this new offence involving children being evaded because of arguments over what does and what does not constitute a danger to the health or safety of the child. The truth is that there will always be a danger to the health, safety and wellbeing of children exposed to the production of illegal drugs. And there are many dangers to children that may arise from their exposure to the manufacture of illegal drugs. There is not only the physical danger and emotional danger, but there is also the fear that children will be exposed to the possibility of acquiring criminal habits. Does that not constitute a potential danger to the health and safety of a child? Is there not exposure to the possibility of acquiring criminal habits potentially of equal seriousness as a danger to a child's health or safety?
In each of those situations—exposure to physical danger, exposure to emotional danger, or exposure to the risk of acquiring criminal habits—we are dealing with consequences and dangers that may not become apparent for years to come. The evidence of such detrimental consequences to a child might not become apparent for years. In the case of emotional damage, that is certainly very likely to be the case. For example, a child who has been sexually abused may not manifest emotional ill effects for years. Children exposed to physical danger—for example, fumes from substances involved in illegal drug manufacturing—may not show any attributable health problem for many years. We only need look at the sad example of those exposed to asbestos succumbing to serious health problems and death many years later. Likewise, the acquisition of criminal tendencies by children exposed to illegal drug manufacturing may only manifest itself after a lapse of some years.
The Opposition believes there should be no ifs and buts. There should be strict liability, with no escape hatches for criminals to wriggle out of this new offence. Accordingly, the Opposition urges passage of these very reasonable amendments. The balance should weigh in favour of the protection of children from the evils of the illegal drug industry, and not in favour of criminals who not only manufacture illegal drugs but also knowingly expose children to their production. Exposure of children to the manufacture or production of illegal drugs should always, and without exception, be taken to be a threat to their health and safety, physical or emotional. Their exposure to this criminal activity is nothing less than teaching them criminal habits. It is a serious matter, and rules of strict liability should apply. It should be a crime without any escape clauses. The Coalition's amendments will achieve this purpose.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.07 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support the amendments moved by the Hon. David Clarke. We agree with the arguments he presented. He referred to health and safety, and we would be concerned also about the moral impact of this activity on children being in a place where illegal drugs are being manufactured. Children should not be present while those activities are taking place. We should support the amendments so that the bill is a clear deterrent to any individuals who are so indifferent to the welfare of their children or other people's children that they would allow those children to be in the vicinity of the place where illegal drugs are being manufactured. We strongly support the amendments.
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [9.08 p.m.]: The Government does not support the amendments. The provision of a defence actually reverses the onus of proof in relation to the risk of harm. This means that the prosecution does not even have to prove the harm. The risk of harm would then be assumed, with the burden of proof shifting to the defendant if it is argued that the health and safety of the child was not endangered.
The Commonwealth, for example, introduced a similar offence in the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Serious Drug Offences and Other Measures) Act 2005. Section 3.10.4 of that Act creates an aggravated manufacturing offence where the child is exposed to the manufacture of a controlled drug or a precursor, or to the manufacture of a controlled precursor. The Commonwealth offence also has a defence in the same terms as the New South Wales defence proposed. However, it is harder for persons in New South Wales to raise the defence as they have to prove it on the balance of probabilities, whereas for the Commonwealth offence a defendant only has to satisfy an evidential burden, that is, to point to evidence that it is a reasonable possibility that a child was not endangered. The New South Wales offence is, in several respects, tougher. The New South Wales offence requires a mere exposure, whereas the Commonwealth offence requires reckless exposure, which means proof that the accused appreciated the risks and proceeded regardless.
The New South Wales offence covers children under 16, whereas the equivalent Commonwealth offence covers only children under 14. This offence is about harm to safety and health. It is deliberately broad to make sure no-one is missed. However, because of the sweeping ambit of the offence and the seriousness of the aggravated penalties, which are very significant, if there is any issue at all about harm that should be resolved it should be addressed by reversing the onus of proof and be the responsibility of the defendant. It has to be remembered that the defence relates only to the new 18- and 25-year aggravated offences and, if made out, the offender still faces a 15- or 20-year maximum penalty for manufacturing.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.10 p.m.]: I find that argument of the Government strange, because retaining the words, "did not endanger the health or safety of the child" would appear to put the onus on the Government. That is how I read it. If we take it out, the Government does not have to prove anything other than that the child was there. That is my simple interpretation of the legislation. Take that section out and it is simply a black and white offence; put that in and you have problems. That is how I interpreted it. The advice does not seem to add up.
The Hon. David Clarke: Your interpretation is correct.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE: You are a lawyer. You ought to explain it to the Minister.
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [9.11 p.m.]: I believe I have set out the argument fairly clearly, but for the information of the Committee and in response to Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, my advice and the position the Government is taking is consistent with what he outlined. We are talking about the process of prosecution and the fact that the prosecution is obliged to prove the offence. That is the nature of our court system. I have outlined the rationale that the aggravated offence has to be proved to cause harm. The Government takes that view; that is correct public policy. We understand the logic behind Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's concern. If I understand him correctly, and if I understand the Hon. David Clarke's remarks correctly, they require this to be a strict liability. The Government maintains the view that the prosecution needs to be able to prove this. I simply make the observation that, both in penalties and standards of proof in their defence, this is tougher legislation than the existing Commonwealth legislation.
The Hon. David Clarke: How can you prove a danger to the health of children that may not arise until years into the future?
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I am now getting into the realms of attempting to give a hypothetical legal opinion. I am afraid that I am limited to the advice that I have and to the remarks I made to the Committee about the policy rationale behind the Government's view that this should be an offence that the prosecution is required to prove. I believe that, on reflection, when seen in that light most honourable members would think this was a fairly reasonable approach. We are not talking about people getting off lightly or walking away; if the aggravated offence is not proved they still face very stiff penalties for manufacture per se. This is an additional offence and it must be proved in accordance with the conventional approach to this kind of law. Their recklessness and the burden of proof for the child being endangered still is with the prosecution.
Question—That the amendments be agreed to—put.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 15
Mr Brown
Mr Clarke
Ms Cusack
Mrs Forsythe
Mr Gallacher
Miss Gardiner | Mr Gay
Mr Lynn
Reverend Dr Moyes
Reverend Nile
Ms Parker
Mr Pearce | Mr Ryan
Tellers,
Mr Harwin
Mrs Pavey |
Noes, 22
Mr Breen
Dr Burgmann
Mr Catanzariti
Dr Chesterfield-Evans
Mr Cohen
Mr Costa
Mr Della Bosca
Mr Donnelly | Ms Griffin
Ms Hale
Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Kelly
Mr Macdonald
Mr Obeid
Ms Rhiannon
Ms Robertson | Mr Roozendaal
Ms Sharpe
Mr Tsang
Dr Wong
Tellers,
Mr Primrose
Mr West |
Pair
Question resolved in the negative.
Amendments negatived.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.21 p.m.], by leave: I move Christian Democratic Party amendments Nos 2 to 4 in globo:
No. 2 Page 5, schedule 1 [11] proposed section 25 (2C), line 15. Omit "(other than cannabis leaf)".
No. 3 Page 5, schedule 1 [11] proposed section 25 (2D), line 19. Omit "(other than cannabis leaf)".
No. 4 Page 10, schedule 1. Insert after schedule 1 [25] and before line 10:
[26] Schedule 1
Omit the matter relating to Cannabis leaf, Cannabis oil, Cannabis plant and Cannabis resin. Insert instead:
Cannabis leaf 100.0g 1.0g 300.0g 8.6kg 35.0kg —
Cannabis oil 2.5g 1.0g 5.0g 250.0g 1.0kg —
Cannabis plant — 2 20 40 200 —
Cannabis resin 12.0g 2.0g 36.0g 1.0kg 4.0kg —
I have circulated a diagram showing the impact of amendment No. 4 on the current legislation, so honourable members now have a basis of comparison between amendment No. 4 and item [25] of schedule 1 to the bill. What is the point of that amendment? Honourable members know that I have been a member of this House for 25 years. Some members are grateful for that fact; others are unhappy. Over that time cannabis or marijuana has been the subject of numerous debates.
In the 1980s the then Attorney General, Frank Walker, had an attitude that I assume was shared by other members of the Australian Labor Party at that time. He seemed to regard marijuana as a harmless recreational drug. At that time there was a strong campaign to decriminalise the use of marijuana. Seminars were held on the subject. I attended some seminars that Mr Walker sponsored at which it was contended that all drug use—not just marijuana but heroin and cocaine—is victimless crime and should be decriminalised. He thought that the law should have no role in drug use and advanced certain arguments to support that contention. However, thankfully, the level of public resistance to those measures was such that they were not proceeded with, and that disastrous policy was not adopted.
Unfortunately, however, much of the Australian Labor Party legislation still reflects that mentality or philosophy, and in that regard there still some inconsistency within the Labor Government currently. Judging by his statements in the House, the Minister for Commerce, the Hon. John Della Bosca, holds conservative views and is concerned about the use of drugs. I have never known him to make a speech about decriminalisation of the use of illicit drugs. I believe the Premier holds similar views and concerns about the impacts of illicit drug use. Currently, similar views are being expressed by members of the Liberal Party, particularly the new Leader of the Liberal Party, Peter Debnam, who is very concerned about the impact of drugs on society.
There has been a great change of attitude in both major political parties about drug use, particularly marijuana. Even the Minister for Health, the Hon. John Hatzistergos, introduced a special education campaign about the dangers of cannabis or marijuana. The leadership of both parties quite explicitly and correctly is acknowledging all the new evidence. The attitude of Labor members of Parliament is different now from that expressed in the Frank Walker years. The current generation has the benefit of a flood of information about the harmful effects of cannabis or marijuana on young people, particularly its effect on mental health. As far as I am able to tell, the evidence of the harmful effects of marijuana is now undisputed. In recent days the Prime Minister, John Howard, stated:
We need to think again as a community about what messages we are sending to people about the dangers of cannabis to their mental health … I have long been concerned about the relatively lax attitude that has been taken in Australia towards cannabis use.
He went on to state:
There is also growing evidence that many disorders are exacerbated or even brought on by drug use. This is particularly distressing in young people, but we are also seeing increasing numbers of older people with impaired mental function from long-term heavy cannabis use.
The Federal Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, the Hon. Kevin Andrews, stated that he was worried about the use of cannabis and wanted to explore its links with welfare dependence. He also stated:
With cannabis there are consequences in terms of not just people's health, but if they are unable to work then it has an impact in terms of welfare dependence as well.
The Federal Minister for Health and Ageing also stated that the Federal Government was poised to strengthen its message about the evils of cannabis in the New Year in the light of new medical evidence. Even the Australian Medical Association, whose views waiver on some of these issues depending on who is elected as its president, has expressed the view through its national president, Mukesh Haikerwal, that the decriminalisation of cannabis has been taken to extremes in some States, particularly when users are able to escape penalty by multiple cautions.
For the reasons I have outlined, I have moved these amendments. As honourable members would know, when the bill refers to penalties in items [10] and [11] of schedule 1—proposed subsections (2C) and (2D)—the penalties apply to offences concerning a prohibited drug "(other than cannabis leaf)". Although the wording is all very correct, the provisions contain a loophole or caveat to exempt cannabis leaf. Offences involving cannabis leaf appear to be regarded as being of no consequence, as though there is no concern associated with the use of cannabis leaf, and it is, therefore, exempt.
According to the bill, people who procure a person under the age of 16 years to supply, or take part in the supply of, a prohibited drug to another person, are guilty of an offence—and that includes cannabis leaf. But this bill exempts cannabis leaf, and the purpose of my amendments is to bring the bill into line with all the latest evidence on cannabis, or marijuana. As I have indicated on the chart that I circulated to honourable members, the quantities reflect the Frank Walker mentality—that marijuana, or cannabis, is a harmless drug. The bill, which I am seeking to change refers to "small quantities", but the quantities are not small at all.
A small quantity of cannabis leaf is listed as 30 grams. One gram can make two joints to be smoked with tobacco, or four cones to be smoked in a bong. Therefore a small quantity of cannabis leaf, according to the Government's bill, translates to 60 joints or 120 cones. A small quantity of resin, which has five to ten times more THC than cannabis leaf, is the equivalent of up to 100 joints or 200 cones. These are clear-cut discrepancies. Whoever determined the quantities in previous years was obviously of the view that cannabis is a harmless drug, and therefore allowed such quantities. Of course, it is those quantities on which the police act and they are required to respond according to the law. Police could say that they issued a caution to someone they found with a small quantity of cannabis. But I have just proven that a "small quantity" is not in fact small, it is large. The bill is misleading in its interpretation of the term "small quantity". I ask that the questions for each of my amendments be put seriatim.
The Hon. DAVID CLARKE [9.31 p.m.]: The Coalition takes great pride in supporting the amendments moved by the Christian Democratic Party, for the sake of the youth in our community, and urges the Government to allow its members a free vote on the amendments.
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Minister for Finance, Minister for Commerce, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability Services, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [9.32 p.m.]: The Government will not support any of the amendments, but the comments of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile merit some explanation in response. He made a number of correct observations about the history of the bill. I agree with most of his interpretation of the history of the policy debate about cannabis and marijuana; that is, the views expressed by many people—and I do not want to personalise this to a previous Attorney General—"on the basis of the evidence" or "on the views that were common 25 or 30 years ago". In defence of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, he has been militantly consistent in this matter.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: I read the medical evidence back in the 1980s; that is why.
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: The research of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile may have been prescient in many respects. I accept the argument put by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile that it is important to note that the strong, publicly available medical evidence and the peer reviewed evidence is more and more against the view that many people held, including myself, 15 years ago that cannabis is a relatively harmless drug. But the community is now very conscious that there are many harms associated with cannabis that previously were not understood or well known. The harms include well-documented relationships between habitual cannabis use and serious psychiatric and depressive illnesses, as well as a number of other potential harms.
With all due respect to Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, that is not the point at issue here. We are talking about the operation of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Amendment Act and its relationship to other critical legislation, particularly section 35 (1) (a) of the Crimes Act, which deals with the procurement of drugs for minors, or children. The Government has formed a clear view in relation to personal use and other matters. In that context there is general acceptance by many members of the Chamber, including some on the crossbenches. However, I know that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile does not agree with the view—he certainly does not agree with the terminologies—taken about personal use offences and getting those who put themselves at risk of serious harm from cannabis, or other illicit drugs, out of the crime drug cycle and into treatment, which often gives the best results for the community and for the individuals involved.
That is what the Government has concentrated on in the social policy content of this debate. The bill is about criminal offences in relation to various substances. The exclusion of cannabis leaf from the bill is consistent with its exclusion from other legislation relating to offences of supplying to a child. When those offences were created by the Government in 1995 Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile moved an amendment to exclude the words "other than cannabis leaf". The amendment was defeated. As was the case in 1995, nothing in this bill changes the existing law in relation to cannabis. The ambit of the offence is broad and extends beyond procuring for commercial supply for commercial purposes. It is appropriate to be consistent with the existing scheme in relation to the offence of supply to a child. The scheme of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act in providing different penalties for offences relating to cannabis has been a feature of the Act since it was created in 1985. The scheme has been maintained since 1985 by both Labor and Coalition governments. Similar schemes in relation to the treatment of cannabis are a feature of prohibited drug legislation in all the mainland States of Australia.
It is very important for the Committee to understand, and for Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile to acknowledge, that if a child is procured in relation to the supply of cannabis leaf an offence is already available under section 35 (1) (a) of the Crimes Act, that of recruiting a child into criminal activity, and that would include the supply of cannabis leaf.
The proposed amendment to scheduled quantities for cannabis is out of line with scheduled quantities in other jurisdictions and is at odds with the approach to cannabis that has been adopted Australia-wide for many years. While cannabis is known to have harmful effects, as Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile alluded to, it still differs from some of the other categories of illicit drugs, and its use does not correspond to fatalities in the same way as other drugs such as heroin. The Government takes the issue of cannabis use in the community particularly seriously. Since the Hon. John Hatzistergos has been Minister for Health and during the time I managed the drug and alcohol policy as a whole-of-government policy on behalf of the Government following the Drug Summit, there has been a remarkable consistency in the Government's policy framework, and that has been to encourage people by way of education and treatment to forsake the use of cannabis.
The Government endeavoured to make people aware of the harms caused by cannabis. We have increased the focus on that in recent times. The Government rejects the view that in any important operational policy sense we are soft on cannabis. We are directing our efforts at discouraging the use of cannabis and prosecuting those who criminally distributed it.
We have introduced special legislation to help police target drug supply and close businesses that are being used as covers for drug dealing. We are targeting cannabis houses in particular. Police action has been both strict and tough on commercial or large and medium quantities—to use comparative terms—of cannabis distribution. The Government has also introduced measures that will crack down on hydroponic cannabis cultivation and strengthen the police capacity to deal with hydroponic cannabis growing offences. In addition, we are providing more treatment facilities, as I have already canvassed, and improved education campaigns relating to cannabis. Our emphasis has been—and Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile has on some occasions acknowledged this fact—on programs to get people through the justice system and into treatment and rehabilitation. This has been quite successful. There is no doubt that in many respects the evaluations the Government has conducted and made publicly available have underlined the success of our policy approach.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile: Yes, and I support that.
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA: I acknowledge Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile's support for that approach. Indeed, the Government appreciate his support in that regard. I ask the House to note that the New South Wales Cannabis Cautioning Scheme is more restrictive than schemes implemented in other States in terms of the amounts of cannabis permitted. Our scheme, which has been positively evaluated by the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, allows only 15 grams whereas the schemes of most other States allow up to 50 grams. The evaluation found that the scheme has succeeded in its aim of diverting persons convicted of minor cannabis offences away from the court system. The Government is considering the report's recommendations regarding methods of enhancing the operation of the scheme, particularly with respect to counselling and treatment options for people who receive cautions.
By contrast, the honourable member's proposed amendment may render diversionary schemes, such as the New South Wales Cannabis Cautioning Scheme, less likely to be able to operate and could cause a significant upswing in the number of people who come into contact with the criminal justice system because of cannabis use to be potentially more likely to become involved in criminal distribution networks. The current approach to cannabis has been the prevailing Government policy for some time now. It has been supplemented by further and better knowledge about the medical and scientific effects of cannabis and has proved to be most effective.
The Hon. CATHERINE CUSACK [9.42 p.m.]: The diversion program referred to by the Minister has different objectives from those articulated by Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile, who is trying to solve the problem. However, the Government is merely trying to reduce the number of people becoming involved in the criminal justice system. That does not mean that the Government is solving any part of the problem. The Government's statistics relating to the number of people charged or convicted by the courts are absolutely pathetic. We are talking about a problem that affects hundreds of thousands of people, yet barely a couple of hundred people a year are charged and even fewer are convicted. In terms of criminal penalties, offences are virtually not being enforced at all. I think the Minister's remarks in that regard were disingenuous.
I live in a part of the State that I sometimes feel is the cannabis capital of Australia—the North Coast. I certainly fall within the category of person referred to by the Minister who in the past did not regard cannabis as the problem it is today. My view has very much changed in the last 20 years, and I suspect I am further down the track than the Minister in that regard. Honourable members will be aware that recently the Mardi Grass was held in Nimbin. I remind Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile that I have previously raised in the Chamber my concerns about this disgusting event, which is attended by thousands of people whose children, who come dressed as fairies, are often as off their faces as their parents. I find it extraordinary that approval is given for such an event. The Hon. Christine Robertson has been critical of me for criticising the Ted Noff's Foundation Director of Research, John Howard, for attending the event to address a "drug psychosium" and informing people that the link between cannabis and mental health is a myth.
I mention this because of the strange comment of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile that there has been some change of attitude by the Liberal Party leadership towards cannabis. I have detected no change whatsoever. When I questioned the credibility of a representative of the Ted Noff's Foundation who attended the Mardi Grass he said—as reported in the local newspaper—that the link between cannabis and mental health is a myth; that it was like being addicted to chocolate. When I voiced my criticism on that occasion I had the 100 per cent support of my leader. Indeed, his response to that criticism was that I should have gone harder on the issue. I have not detected any change whatsoever in my party's position on these matters. It has been a very solid position under both my leaders. I was concerned about that strange comment of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. Having said that, I am happy to lend my support to these amendments. I believe this issue is totally underestimated and I fear that a generation of young people on the North Coast are being destroyed. The matter is not being treated seriously.
The Hon. Dr PETER WONG [9.45 p.m.]: I also endorse the comments of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile. As a doctor I have known for many years that cannabis is harmful. In the beginning we thought it could be as harmful as cigarettes. Now we know it is even more harmful than cigarettes. It is a major problem yet it is freely available. If the Government wishes to send a serious message about cannabis, it should to support the amendment of Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.46 p.m.]: I thank the Minister for the detailed response; it obviously took some time to prepare. He confirmed my argument when he said a couple of times that the legislation is based on the 1985 model. In fact, Liberal leaders at that time would have had similar views . The Hon. Catherine Cusack said that her views had changed in the past 20 years. I was referring to that historical change, not to any change that has taken place in recent weeks. Over a period of time both the major parties have come to recognise the harm that can be caused by cannabis and other drugs.
My point is that the amendments may not be agreed to, but at least the Government has acknowledged that the legislation is based on the 1985 model. It may also give further consideration to reviewing this bill and other legislation to bring them into line with current medical and scientific information. The Minister has acknowledged that, but it is not reflected in the bill, and that is the problem I am trying to highlight tonight.
Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 2 negatived.
Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 3 negatived.
Question—That Christian Democratic Party amendment No. 4 be agreed to—put.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 16
Mr Brown
Mr Clarke
Ms Cusack
Mrs Forsythe
Mr Gallacher
Miss Gardiner | Mr Gay
Mr Lynn
Reverend Dr Moyes
Reverend Nile
Ms Parker
Mr Pearce | Mr Ryan
Dr Wong
Tellers,
Mr Harwin
Mrs Pavey |
Noes, 21
Mr Breen
Dr Burgmann
Mr Catanzariti
Dr Chesterfield-Evans
Mr Cohen
Mr Costa
Mr Della Bosca
Mr Donnelly | Ms Griffin
Ms Hale
Mr Hatzistergos
Mr Kelly
Mr Macdonald
Mr Obeid
Ms Rhiannon
Ms Robertson | Mr Roozendaal
Ms Sharpe
Mr Tsang
Tellers,
Mr Primrose
Mr West |
Pair
Question resolved in the negative.
Christian Democratic Party Amendment No. 4 negatived.
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported from Committee with an amendment and passed through remaining stages.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:33:19 : Update this page