Lead Editor-Politics
Opposition Leader Pennelope Beckles says the Government is misleading the public by presenting its proposed increases in the legal ages for alcohol, tobacco, cannabis and gambling primarily as measures to protect young people, arguing that the legislation goes much further by creating new offences and imposing significantly tougher penalties.
“It is deeply misleading to sell this as simply a Bill to ‘protect young people’ by raising age limits, when the legislation goes much further, creating new offences, exposing young people to fines of up to $50,000, introducing fixed penalty notices and rehabilitation requirements, and dramatically increasing penalties across multiple laws,” Beckles said.
The Opposition Leader raised the concerns ahead of the Government’s introduction of the Miscellaneous Provisions Bill, which proposes amendments across seven pieces of legislation dealing with alcohol, cannabis, dangerous drugs, tobacco, gambling, private members’ clubs and the protection of children.
Among the major changes, the legal age for alcohol and tobacco would increase from 18 to 21, while the threshold for cannabis and gambling would rise to 25.
But Beckles said the debate should not be confined to whether those age limits should be increased.
She pointed to provisions under which people between 18 and 21 who consume alcohol or possess tobacco could face fines of up to $50,000, while people between 18 and 25 who use or possess cannabis could also face substantial penalties.
The Bill also proposes significantly increased penalties for several other offences, including a fine of up to $5 million and seven years’ imprisonment for unlicensed remote gambling.
Beckles said changes of that magnitude required greater public scrutiny and questioned what consultation had taken place before the legislation was brought to Parliament.
“Where was the consultation? Where is the national conversation? When did the people get the opportunity to properly examine these provisions before they are rushed through Parliament?”
Beckles also questioned whether some of the proposed punishments were proportionate, arguing that certain penalties were more severe than those attached to some offences involving assault or threats of violence.
She challenged the Government to explain the basis for imposing such substantial penalties, particularly on young adults who would previously have been legally permitted to engage in some of the activities now being restricted.
Beckles described the Government’s approach as part of what she called a “rolling assault on democratic accountability,” arguing that Parliament should not be used to push through far-reaching changes without sufficient scrutiny, consultation or national debate.
