Territory Stories

Parliamentary record : Part I debates (27 February 1990)



Parliamentary record : Part I debates (27 February 1990)


Debates for 5th Assembly 1987 - 1990; ParliamentNT; Parliamentary Record; 5th Assembly 1987 - 1990




Made available by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory





Publisher name

Northern Territory Legislative Assembly

Place of publication


File type



Attribution International 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)

Copyright owner

Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory



Parent handle


Citation address


Page content

DEBATES - Tuesday 27 February 1990 a talking point. I have seen them with plants growing out of them. Some are quite artistic and are imported from Arabia .. Do these things come under the definition? Could some.one who has a bong or hookah in his house be liable for 2 years in jail? We could perhaps raid the shops in town which sell them and fine the proprietors a ~ouple of thousand dollars each before sending them to jail for a couple of years each. As my honourable colleague said, there is also the. matter of cigarette papers. I probably have some in my hotel room, despite giving up smoking once again. Obviously, they are used in the administration of drugs. That is what they roll cannabis in. It refers to 'unlawful possession' of .the 'thing'. Does that mean that the person has to steal it? .Canyou be in lawful possession of an object which is used for an unlawful purpose? Mr MANZIE: Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear that its use in the administration of a dangerous drug is what makes it unlawful. If it is an ornament, there is no offence. The throwaway line about the $2000 . ,. Mr Ede: It is not the use; it is the possession! Mr MANZIE: On the day that the fi nes that are 1 i sted here are imposed by the court, probably I will not be around. It is very clear. If it is for use in the administration of a dangerous drug, it is an offence. And that is it. If it is an ornament, it is not a problem. Mr Ede: It is the possession. provision, it is the possession. It is not the usage. Under th is Mr MANZIE: That is the possession of something that is used in the administration M~ Perron: . Possession for use of. Mr MANZIE: That is right. It has to be proved in a court, beyond reasonable doubt and, if those points are not proven, there would be no offence. If someone has the instrument, whatever it may be, and the drug is in it, the fact that it is claimed to be a flower vase will not be considered an excuse. Mr EDE: Mr Chai rman, I .am as confused as everybodyel se 1.s with regard to clause 12(1). Mr Perron: What do you mean, 'everybody else'? Speak for yourself! Mr EDE: The honourable minister said he was confused. I was confused. Mr Manzie: I was confused by your presentation. Mr EDE: Mr Chairman, let us move to new clau$e 12(2A). I am glad that clause 12(2A) has been inserted, but I would like to query the mirror image, if you like, of that. This refers to a situation in which one person obtained a clean hypodermic syringe from a medical practitioner for another person. That concerns an unused syringe or needl~. What happens if that same person takes one of the dirty needles from the person who has finished using it and is taking that to the needle exchange point? Where is that person covered or; on that leg of the trip, is he in possession of the used syringe or needle and liable to a penalty of $2000 or 2 years imprisonment? 8853