STATUTES AMENDMENT (PROCEEDS OF TERRORISM) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 7 June 2007. Page 374.)

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (11:00): I would have thought that it was incumbent on the Leader of the Opposition to discharge this bill, now that it no longer has any relevance.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:00): While I await my leader's return, I think that we are agreeing with the Attorney-General on this matter. The leader first raised this issue in the house some time ago, and I am very pleased that the government has, I believe, instituted its own legislation and that it almost mirrors exactly what the leader had moved.

It is a very important issue to us and, of course, it is a very relevant issue, particularly in the light of what has happened in recent days. I congratulate the leader on having the foresight to introduce this measure when it was not quite so relevant. I agree that we probably will withdraw it, but I think that is the right of the mover, that is, the leader.

Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Leader of the Opposition) (11:02): I thank the government for its kind words of support for this measure. I say that because the government has given it the best support such a bill could ever have.

The SPEAKER: Can I clarify with the leader that, if he speaks, he closes the debate.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Yes; I am closing the debate. The government has imitated the measure, introduced its own bill and brought it to pass. I remind the house that I raised the question of what was to happen—

Mrs GERAGHTY: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, I am a bit confused. I was of the understanding that the leader would ask for this to be discharged and withdrawn. Is that not the case? That was the agreement.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I am happy to close the debate and have it defeated or voted upon. You are opposing it, aren't you?

Mrs Geraghty: No; that was not—

The SPEAKER: Order! The leader has begun speaking. I have already indicated to the house that, by speaking, he closes the debate, so we must now proceed along that course of action.

Mrs GERAGHTY: Can I put on the record that we have been misled by the opposition.

The SPEAKER: No; you cannot. The Leader of the Opposition has the call.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: To clarify the issue, I am happy to have this matter dealt with today and removed from the Notice Paper because, as I have explained—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Discharge it.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I may do that at the end of my address, but I do not think that I can, now that I am closing the debate. I have to close it, and then we vote on it; is that right?

The SPEAKER: Yes.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Either way, we are going to deal with it today, so let us all just remain calm. The point is that, in bringing this bill before the house, the question I was putting was: should we allow Mr Hicks to tell his story and profit from it? I do not believe that we should.

At the time I introduced the bill, the government had not even identified that there was a problem, and it had done nothing to deal with it. The proposition put in my bill—and I think this is where it differs slightly from the inferior bill that the government put forward, which was ultimately passed—is that you can not really stop, in my view—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, I am about to tell you, if you will listen. We cannot really stop Mr Hicks, his agents or his family, one way or the other, from telling their story. I think this story will be told either directly or through agents. As the Attorney will know, the media can be very pervasive and persistent when it comes to getting a story out. The key to me seems to be to ensure that any proceeds from the story go to victims of crime and terrorism. Therefore, I, personally, would be happy to see Mr Hicks tell his story, provided that all the proceeds went to help the people who were victims of him and his associates in Al Qaeda.

By bringing the matter before the house, I clearly sparked the government into action, and it quite rightly—and I give the government credit—saw that this needed to be done, emulated the bill, went to parliamentary counsel and got them to copy a version with its name on the bottom, made one or two changes and introduced it to the house. Either way, what we finished up with is a better law. I note that the government extended its law to include some other issues, and I also commend it for that. I think I spoke to the bill in the house at the time.

We now have a better set of legal arrangements in South Australia to deal with these issues. I am glad to have helped initiate that process, and I commend the government for seeing the merit in the issue, for taking our lead and emulating our proposed legislation, and doing something about it in a spirit of bipartisanship. I am thankful to know that the Attorney saw merit in the proposition. I am happy to have a vote on it now and remove it from the Notice Paper so that we can all move forward. The issue that I have raised has been dealt with and we are all safer and better for it.

Second reading negatived.