Barker Rick: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Barker Rick: Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:674;Page:20205] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I have two questions that I would like to put to the Minister in the chair Associate Minister of Health the Hon Peter Dunne—if the Minister has finished his texting. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: That is all right. The first is a very serious question. There was a case that went to the Supreme Court concerning the presumption in the law as it stands which is that if a person has a certain amount of cannabis or any particular drug they are deemed to be dealing not just consuming. The Supreme Court looked at this issue and in the end chose not to strike down the legislation but gave very careful consideration to it. The court’s fault with the legislation was that there was a presumption in it of someone being guilty of a charge and not a presumption of innocence. 
This is I think a very serious issue. As I understand the legislation that is being put forward here if people have a certain amount of material that will be presumed to be for personal supply but if it is over a certain amount there will be a presumption of dealing and that is the charge that people will get. I want to know whether the Minister and the people who drafted this legislation have taken into account that Supreme Court decision which was a split decision and whether they have fixed what the Supreme Court saw as the deficiencies in the legislation passed by this Parliament. I would like the Minister to give me an explanation about that. 
The second issue is a question about Supplementary Order Paper 258. I have just picked up a copy of the Supplementary Order Paper and I see that it amends new section 4D(4) to state: “Possession by a person of 56 grams or more in total of any products (including cigarettes) or any drug forms (including flakes tablets or capsules)”. The general rule of legal interpretation is that if a number of items are specified the list is deemed by the law to be complete. That is what has been interpreted. I see one of the officials shaking their head but I would ask the Minister whether it is possible that if someone had a powder or liquid form they would be able to say they were exempted from the scope of this legislation. By any definition a powder is different from a flake and a liquid is different from a solid form. The Minister may not know this but a number of drugs such as methamphetamines and pseudoephedrines are usually in a crystal form but the drug can be used and transported in a liquid form. 
I am just concerned that the legislation we have here is very narrow in its definition of “flakes tablets or capsules” and does not cover powder and liquids. I would like to be assured that the matters that I have raised have been considered by the officials and I would like the Minister to advise me that the issues contained in them have been dealt with so that if a person is caught in possession of a liquid that will not defeat the purposes of the legislation because the Minister has not specified that it covers liquids. I would also think that a powder is different from a flake. A flake is a chip or a chunk and a powder is quite differently defined in the dictionary—I have taken time to check that. I would like the Minister to respond to that issue and say yes or no to the question of whether the recent Supreme Court decision has been taken into account and yes or no to the question of whether the drug comes in the form of a liquid or powder has been taken into account.