SUMMARY OFFENCES (DRUG PARAPHERNALIA) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 February 2008. Page 2132.)

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (12:39): I indicate that I am the lead speaker on this bill. We will be supporting the bill, as we did the previous bills of the Hon. Ann Bressington in relation to this matter. The bill that comes to us now as a government bill was moved by the Hon. Ann Bressington in the other place and, indeed, replaces an earlier bill of the Hon. Ann Bressington. I understand that the difference is that the earlier bill included hydroponic equipment but, by an agreement that the Hon. Ann Bressington reached with the Attorney-General, it was decided to remove hydroponic equipment from her bill and to put it instead into the Controlled Substances (Possession of Prescribed Equipment) Amendment Bill 2007.

Our position was that we went to the election in 2006 with a drugs policy wherein we sought to regulate both purchasers and vendors of equipment relating to illicit drugs, and this bill, at least, substantially addresses that issue. What the bill does in fundamental terms is to make the sale of pipes, bongs and cocaine kits illegal, and bans the sale of that paraphernalia. The mechanism by which that is achieved is that certain specific utensils are defined under the bill, and they are deemed to be assumed to be used for the purpose of consumption of illicit drugs.

The difficulty which was being overcome was effectively that, if we had shops which were routinely selling these items, the problem faced by the police was generally that, in order to sustain a breach of the existing legislation, they would have to establish that the purpose for which the items were being sold was for the consumption of illicit drugs. Now, of course, that was an almost impossible threshold for the police to meet because the vendor could not be deemed to be selling things for any particular purpose. This bill basically overcomes that impediment by simply saying, 'Well, if you are selling these things, we will assume they are being sold for the purpose of the sale of illicit equipment for the consumption of illicit drugs.' So, the police will no longer have that difficulty to overcome.

I do want to explore one issue. I do not know whether I will be able to explore it sufficiently in the second reading. I do not intend to make a very long second reading contribution because it is a relatively straightforward bill about which we are all agreed. However, the difficulty with which I do want to deal is that of the Egyptian Cafe and Shisha House in Hindley Street and a number of other places where the use of shishas to smoke, effectively, fruit pulp type substances is part of the cultural attraction of people running those places. A quick look at the legislation tempts me to the view that in fact that will not be a problem under this bill because the person running a cafe such as that will not be selling the equipment.

My view would be that, probably, such a proprietor of a cafe would bring such equipment into the country legally, because we are not in a position to prohibit its importation. That would be a federal issue; and there is nothing to stop such equipment being imported and nor is there anything stopping such equipment being used. What is prohibited by this bill is its sale. If the Attorney can clarify that issue in his second reading response, maybe we can overcome that problem and be aware of just where people like that will stand, because I know the Attorney has a great connection with various members of the multicultural community. I want to quote from a letter which a number of members, I am sure, have received from the proprietor—and I will not attempt to pronounce his name—of the Egyptian Cafe and Shisha House in Hindley Street, in which he states:

While I can see the motive for the banning of implements that can be used to smoke marijuana, I feel indignant that shisha will be included in the ban. From a cultural perspective, in my native Egypt smoking shisha is a common practice and a daily ritual for many men and women as it is throughout the Middle East. It is the equivalent of an Australian enjoying a beer. My Egyptian Cafe offers traditional halal, Egyptian food, music, dancing and shisha. These combined offer an authentic Egyptian experience for the Adelaide public.

He goes on to point out that the shisha is smoked there in an unenclosed area, that there is no problem with health departments and tobacco regulation, and that it is basically a very public area and it would be impossible to suggest that it would be used for any illicit drug purposes. He also goes on to point out that the ingredient used to smoke in the shisha is macerated fruit pulp, and that the product contains 0.5 per cent nicotine and zero per cent tar; so, it offers no high, unlike tobacco products. The shisha was not designed to smoke drugs.

Indeed, I am aware of at least two people to whom I have spoken—coincidentally in the last couple of months—but not with this legislation in mind at all. One was a male friend who gave up smoking many years ago. While he was on a tour through the Middle East his wife encouraged him to smoke the shisha as part of the cultural experience. He indicated to me that it had a very fruity flavour and was nothing like smoking tobacco. Another was a girlfriend who has recently been to Egypt and, again, enjoyed the cultural experience of smoking the shisha as a fruity type of inhalant, but not in any way connected with either illicit drugs or tobacco smoking.

The gentleman who wrote to me and others in relation to this expresses the view that his cafe will be extremely adversely affected if he is denied the right to continue this current practice. He thinks that four or five cafes around Adelaide engage in the process. The issues that I would like the Attorney to address are: first, in his view, does my interpretation stand, or is the effect of this legislation that the use of a shisha in such a cafe setting or, indeed, in a private setting, would be a problem under this legislation? Secondly, if it is a problem under the legislation, would the Attorney then consider (it cannot be between the houses; we would have to deal with it before we leave this place this afternoon, I suppose) some sort of exemption system to allow this cultural aspect to continue, given that, clearly, we are aiming to address the problem of illicit drugs? We are all at one about the need to address that issue and about using this mechanism to do so.

The problem, from our point of view, is that we do not intend to have the unfortunate outcome of affecting the cultural diversity of the state in an adverse way by banning the use of shishas in an open restaurant type area where, clearly, it is not a problem. It is not at what we are aiming. As I said, I am happy for us to try to address it during the second reading rather than having to go into committee, because this is really the only issue that we have with the bill. Could the Attorney let us know his thoughts on the matter and, if there is a problem, whether there is a way to get around the problem before this bill is finally passed in this house? I did say earlier that we could perhaps deal with it between the houses, but, of course, this bill has come to us from the other place and, therefore, it will not be further considered there unless we pass an amendment in this house. I ask the Attorney to give some thought to that prior to the conclusion of the debate on this topic.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (12:50): The member for Heysen is right to think that the bill bans the sale of bongs, hookahs, narghiles, shishas and ghalyans. That is correct. Some South Australians already own these devices, and the bill does not prohibit their use or their ownership. I can now disclose I own one. I own one which was—

Mrs Redmond: For decorative purposes only!

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No, not for decorative purposes only. It was given to me by the retired Turkish imam who lives in my electorate. We tried to get it fired up at his home one day and failed, so I took it to a Maronite dinner at the Maronite Church at Westbourne Park, and members of the Maronite Lebanese community helped me get it fired up. I smoked it. Indeed, I can disclose that the Leader of the Opposition and I have used the same hookah.

The Hon. S.W. Key: What flavour was it?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It was apple flavour. So, I have said to the Hon. Ann Bressington and others, such as the talk show host Bob Francis, that people from the Middle East, Lebanon, Palestine, Iran and Egypt, even the Greeks of Asia Minor, use these devices to smoke. Bob Francis has just completely contradicted me and said that he does not believe it, but it is true. So, I have mentioned on Radio FIVEaa places where these are displayed and bought at multicultural festivals and the like.

The view of the Hon. Ann Bressington is that the mischief of the bong being sold from retail premises is so great that it overcomes the objection to this covering sale of hookahs, narghiles and so forth. People will be able to own them and use them. As the member for Heysen says, they will probably be able to import them, but they just will not be able to sell them. So, I think that the inconvenience of not being able to sell them is minor compared with the mischief of drug paraphernalia stores in South Australia glorifying the use of illicit substances and showing two fingers to civil society. Therefore, the government has decided to support the Hon. Ann Bressington's bill.

I do not, for one moment, claim that it is going to make a dent in the use of illegal substances in South Australia. That is not my argument. My argument is that the drug paraphernalia stores are promoting the use of illegal substances. They are glorifying drug trafficking, and this is the means to close them down, or at least limit them: stores such as Off Ya Tree. That is why the Democrats, the Greens, and others, want to do everything they can to undermine the effect of their bill, because of those parties' association with the drug culture. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Mr HANNA: I have followed the debate closely in relation to those devices which are traditionally used in Middle Eastern societies. I believe that the bill goes too far in catching those devices. It has already been mentioned that the definition of water pipe specifically includes devices known as bongs, hookahs, narghiles, shishas and ghalyans. I have no issue with the mention of the word 'bong' in that provision. Clearly, all these things are water pipes, as defined. In terms of the definition, it is difficult to distinguish between bongs and these other devices which have been used, for centuries at least, in Middle Eastern cultures.

The Attorney-General, who was also Minister for Multicultural Affairs, has shown his appreciation of this aspect of the cultural life of those countries; however, the Attorney and I see things differently when it comes to evaluating the harm done by prohibition of the sale of these items as against the value of overcoming the mischief at which this bill is aimed. In fact, the devices to which I have referred—not including bongs—in my experience, are rarely, if ever, used for illicit drug use and very commonly used for the smoking of a mixture of fruit pulp and tobacco, to which the member for Heysen and the Attorney-General have already referred.

I will move an amendment to exclude these items, and I believe that there is a way of doing it. I will formally move my amendment in a moment. I have given some consideration as to how this might be done. One option would be to allow the sale of these items by permit, but one might say: why add another layer of bureaucracy for the sale of these simple items? Therefore, I thought the best way of doing it was to attempt as best as possible to distinguish between the common and garden variety bongs on the one hand and these devices which have traditionally been used for a legitimate purpose.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]