STATUTES AMENDMENT (POWER TO BAR) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (12:30): I congratulate the Hackham East Primary School boys' choir, and I am sorry I missed their performance; it would have been something worth listening to, and I would like that opportunity at some stage. I will now continue my remarks on an important piece of legislation before this house—the Statutes Amendment (Power to Bar) Amendment Bill 2008. I have a lot of faith in the South Australian police and their integrity in conducting their duties not only with the highest rigour but also with judicial acumen. They are not going to run around willy-nilly and bar people from hotels because this legislation has been passed.

The need to bar patrons from licensed premises is something that traditionally has been left up to the licensee. This piece of legislation extends that power to senior police officers, and the reason for that is that, unfortunately, there have been some tragic circumstances where outlaw motorcycle gangs and other people with organised crime connections have gone into licensed premises and committed criminal acts, in one case in Gouger Street with gunfire and violence. There has also been a history of the selling of drugs and other organised crime, and the licensees of a lot of these premises are intimidated by some of these people who are the subject of this piece of legislation.

We need to make sure that the licensees and the employees of licensed premises are not going to be intimidated, and so not being able to ban people from their hotels without fear of retribution is something that I think is completely out of place here in South Australia. So, this legislation is giving the opportunity for police to use their information—whether it is criminal intelligence or advice from the licensees—to act on behalf of the licensees, and also on their own recourse, to ban people from licensed premises.

We will do whatever we can, whether it is in this place or by general support of the South Australian police and people going about their honest business in South Australia, to make sure that people can have the opportunity to run a business that is going to be not only a good and pleasant business but also one where they are not going to be subject to threats and intimidation by people with ill intent. The legislation is relatively straightforward. The Liberal Party supports it and, with that, I conclude my remarks.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:33): Very briefly, I certainly support this bill, representing an area which is associated with the alcohol industry. I just want to raise one objection, and this is in reaction to the recent shootings in the Gouger Street precinct. I do not believe that it is right that any of us should ever bring legislation into this place as a direct result of an event like that. Yes, it was regrettable, and certainly it may highlight a problem, which it obviously does, but I think it is wrong that we instantly react to a situation. It is either required or it is not, but in this instance I am quite supportive of this being on the authorisation of a police officer of a specified rank—that is not specified here, and I presume it is a senior police officer—having the power to make an order to bar persons from a licensed premises. None of us would have any objection to that. I commend the shadow minister for representing us strongly, and we support the bill.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (12:34): The shadow minister has given agreement to this bill on behalf of the Liberal Party. I was dealing with this bill formerly as the shadow minister over a period of four or five months prior to the reshuffle. I make the point to the government that this bill was introduced about five months ago, and to come in here two days before Christmas and rush it through on the basis that it is urgent is really a nonsense, indeed. It is really because of the former minister's incompetence and failure to bring it on that we are here rushing it through at a minute's notice two days before Christmas.

Given that it has been rushed on us from the other place today and must be put through within the hour, I have not had a chance to read this bill to see whether it is in exactly the same form as the bill on which I was briefed. However, I seem to recall that within the bill on which I was briefed there was a mechanism for going to court if the barring order was over a certain length of time—three days rings a bell, but I might be wrong about that. The question I raised during the briefing was: 'When the person who is barred appeals to court, on what grounds can they appeal?' The answer was: 'Well, they certainly can't have access to any of the information on which the police have made their decision to bar.'

Now, think that through. If the police are to have the power to bar based on criminal intelligence, the person, in certain circumstances, can appeal to the court but they cannot have access to the information on which the decision was made. As a layman, or as a person not legally qualified, I ask the very simple question: if I am barred (or one of my constituents is barred) and I seek to go to the court and I cannot get access to the information on which the decision was made, how then can I appeal it? If the minister can answer that question for me in her second reading response, we will not need to go into committee, but to me it seems a legal intrigue that someone can make a decision (the Police Commissioner or a senior officer as defined), I can be aggrieved by that and I can seek to appeal to the court. I go to the court and say, 'Well, look, I am not happy with this, but I can't have access to the information on which the Police Commissioner has made the decision.'

Here is the problem the parliament needs to think about and why I think it is very unfortunate this bill is being rushed through this place in less than an hour. What the Police Commissioner is doing, quite rightly, is making a decision based on criminal intelligence. If the person appealing has access to the criminal intelligence, clearly, that will reveal some police information. The summary effect of this bill is that we are giving the police the power to bar people from licensed premises without access to the information on which the decision to bar them has been made.

That was my understanding of the briefing some months ago. Now, if the bill has changed, I apologise to the house. As I say, this matter went through the upper house yesterday (or it might have been only this morning) and it has been walked in here as a matter of urgency. Certainly that was the circumstance to the best of my memory of the briefing that I was given. This bill allows the Police Commissioner to ban a person in every licensed premises in the state forever if the Police Commissioner so wishes, and, if they wish to appeal that decision, the person can go to the court but not have access to the information on which the barring has occurred.

That is what we are voting for, and I assume that all members know that we are voting for that. As I say, if I am wrong, I apologise to the house, but, if I am right, I would like the minister to confirm it and just explain how any person can appeal the decision if they do not have the information on which the decision was made to appeal against.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for Families and Communities, Minister for Northern Suburbs, Minister for Housing, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability) (12:40): I thank members for their contribution and support for this bill, and I thank the member for Davenport, once again, for his vote of confidence. My understanding of the appeal process—and the Commissioner has come into the chamber and he can correct me if I am wrong—is that people will know that they have been barred by the Police Commissioner and that it is on criminal intelligence, and that when it does go to court, the judge will determine whether the appellant is able to access that information. Ultimately, it is the court that will make the determination about whether or not it is criminal intelligence.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for Families and Communities, Minister for Northern Suburbs, Minister for Housing, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability) (12:41): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (12:42): Am I allowed to speak to the third reading motion?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are; although you may not raise new matters.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Of course, I will not raise new matters. I will just speak to the issue to which the minister responded during the course of the second reading debate. If that is the case, then what we are voting for on the third reading is that members of the public will be forced to go through an expensive legal exercise of appeal, having no basis at all on whether they will get any information on which to appeal.

If you are an average citizen of this state, what can happen under this bill is that you can be barred and then you have to make a judgment about whether you are prepared to go to court to appeal it on the assumption that you might get access to information about the decision that has been made against you. Clearly, that puts that member of the public who has been barred at a significant disadvantage. I would have loved more time to examine that particular matter with my legal colleagues more thoroughly. Unfortunately, that will not be available to us, but I raise it as a matter of legal intrigue because, ultimately, I think that that might be a weakness in the bill.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for Families and Communities, Minister for Northern Suburbs, Minister for Housing, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability) (12:44): I thank members for their contribution. Clearly, the clause in the bill relating to criminal intelligence is aimed at the most unsavoury characters in our community, and I would imagine the Police Commissioner will use that power wisely, cautiously and appropriately.

Bill read a third time and passed.