Parliamentary record : Part I debates (27 February 1990)
Debates for 5th Assembly 1987 - 1990; ParliamentNT; Parliamentary Record; 5th Assembly 1987 - 1990
1990-02-27
Made available by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory
English
Debates
Northern Territory Legislative Assembly
Darwin
application/pdf
Attribution International 4.0 (CC BY 4.0)
Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://hdl.handle.net/10070/220388
https://hdl.handle.net/10070/699398
DEBATES - Tuesday 27 February 1990 is guilty of an offence. That has no relationship whatsoever necessarily to drugs. For example, I have a number of hypodermic syringes at home to measure out medicine for my son who has asthma. We use them every day. If someone happened to pick up one of those hypodermic syringes and pricked himself, could I be prosecuted under this legislation or would it be the same as common sense with sharp knives, power points and power tools? Mr MANZIE: problem. You have answered your own question. Amendment agreed to. Clause 12, as amended, agreed to. Clauses 13 to 21: I cannot see any Mr BELL: Mr Chairman, I want to raise a couple of questions about clause 14: 'A person who allows another person to unlawfully 'administer a dangerous drug to the fi rst-ment i oned person is gUil ty of an offence I .' I believe that there should be come qual1fication of that. I can imagine circumstances where A is administering a dangerous drug to himself or herself and B happens to be in the vicinity and is 'a stranger. Because Ais of large physical stature, B might be essentially intimidated but might be construed to have allowed A to inject himself or herself. The existing provision has potential for considerable injustice. Mr MANZIE: Mr Chairman, any suggestion that a person can be charged under this provision when he was under duress, which is a defence available under the Criminal Code, is ridiculous. The member for MacDonnell' is not doing himself or the parliament justice by even suggesting that such a thing could happen. I certainly would not contemplate making it lawful for 'a person un 1 awfully to admi n i ster a dangerous drug to another. That is my final word on it. Mrs PADGHAM.,..PURICH: Mr Chairman, 1 would like the minister to indicate how he can justify clause 13: I A person who admi ni sters a dangerous drug 'to hi mse lf or herse lf is guil ty of an offence I How can you say that a person who admi n i sters a dangerous drug to himse lf is not gun ty of an offence? You cannot, and therefore why do you have it in legislation? Mr MANZIE: Mr Chairman, if there,is sufficient evidence to prosecute a person for admini stering a dangerous drug to himself, he will be prosecuted. That is the essence of that offence. Mrs PADGHAM-PURICH: Mr Chairman, 1f there are needle exchange places where drug addicts go to obtain syringes full of dangerous drugs to administer to themselves Mr Manzie: They are empty syringes. Mrs PADGHAM-PURICH: Well, they get the syringes to fill with drugs that they have and admi n i ster them to themse 1 ves. Peop 1 e who came here from other societies would consider this to be a ludicrous situation. On the one hand, we say that, 1f you administer a dangerous drug to yourself, you are guil ty of an offence. On the other hand, we are offeri ng peop 1 e the syri nge with which to administer the drug. I do not think police have exactly been warned off following these people, but I have an idea that I would be pretty close in saying that. If you were ridgy-didge about this, the polite would 8857