CRIMINAL LAW (CLAMPING, IMPOUNDING AND FORFEITURE OF VEHICLES) (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 15 October 2009. Page 4388.)

Clause 5.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I move:

Page 3, after line 4—Insert:

(1) Section 5(5)—Delete 'A motor' and substitute:

Except as provided in section 16(3), a motor

In the second reading I noticed that the measures in the bill represented an initial and immediate response by the government to the increasing prominence of hoon and dangerous driving by some sections of the public. Since the second reading the government has filed amendments to the bill. These amendments build on the initial measures in the bill to combat hoon driving on South Australian roads.

Amendment No. 1 seeks to permit temporary clamping by the relevant authority, namely SAPOL, on a public road or other area of a kind prescribed by regulation. It is consequential on the amendments to section 16(3). SAPOL has advised that police resources are being inefficiently used when patrol members who seize a vehicle under the authority of the Criminal Law (Clamping, Impounding and Forfeiture of Vehicles) Act are required to wait by the roadside until the tow truck arrives. SAPOL have further advised that patrol members have, on occasions, waited with the seized vehicle for up to two or three hours for this to occur. Once clamped on the roadside, a tow truck will then be requested to attend the scene and remove the vehicle to a designated SAPOL impounding yard. This obviates the need for SAPOL officers to wait alongside a vehicle seized on a public road for the tow truck to arrive to take it away.

The general prohibition of clamping on public roads or other areas of a kind prescribed by regulation will remain under section 16(3) of the act but will make an exception to this. The practical effect of the amendment to the subsection will be to permit SAPOL officers to affix clamps temporarily or, indeed, any other locking device to the motor vehicle on a public road or in any other place to secure the vehicle until it can be seized and moved a short time later.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I move:

Page 3, after line 8—Insert:

(5) Section 5(6)(b)—Delete 'prescribed' and substitute:

clamping or impounding

This is a technical amendment that substitutes the word 'prescribed' for clamping or impounding period. For the purposes of section 5 of the act 'prescribed period' will refer to the period a seized vehicle is liable to be clamped or impounded.

One of the measures contained in the bill is to increase the period from seven to 28 days. This is the period to which the phrase 'prescribed period' relates. The amendment removes any ambiguity, as currently the phrase 'prescribed period' is not defined in the act. This amendment does not change the effect of this provision but simply clarifies what is meant by 'prescribed period'.

Amendment carried; clause passed.

Clauses 6 and 7 passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I move:

Page 3, after line 16—Insert:

(a1) Section 8(1)—Delete subsection (1) and substitute:

(1) When the clamping or impounding period for a motor vehicle ends—

(a) a person entitled to custody of the motor vehicle must, after the end of the period and during ordinary business hours, apply for removal of the clamps or release of the motor vehicle; and

(b) on the making of such an application the relevant authority must release the motor vehicle, as soon as is reasonably practicable, into the custody of that person.

Page 4, after line 5—Insert:

(4) Section 8(3)—After paragraph (b) insert:

or

(c) obliges the relevant authority to remove clamps from a motor vehicle or release a motor vehicle into the custody of a person if the relevant authority is not satisfied that the person who applied for removal or release is entitled to custody of the motor vehicle.

(5) Section 8(4)—After the definition of ordinary business hours insert:

person entitled to custody of a motor vehicle means—

(a) an owner of the motor vehicle; or

(b) a person authorised by an owner of the motor vehicle to take custody of the motor vehicle; or

(c) a person legally entitled to possession of the motor vehicle.

This amendment is necessary to remove any ambiguity about the collection or release of motor vehicles at the end of the clamping or impounding period.

First, SAPOL has experienced cases where, at the end of the impounding or clamping period, alleged offenders seek the release or return of the clamped or impounded vehicle outside business hours. Secondly, this amendment will clarify that the onus falls upon the persons entitled to custody of the motor vehicle to apply to SAPOL to arrange the release of the vehicle at the end of the clamping or impounding period.

This will be achieved by deleting section 8(1) and substituting a new provision as proposed in the amendment. The government is aware of recent cases of motor vehicles being impounded in the early morning—for instance, 3am—by SAPOL and the registered owner or person entitled to custody of the vehicle expecting to resume possession of the vehicle at the end of the impounding period at exactly 3am. In such cases the government is of the view that it is reasonable for the vehicle to be collected during business hours.

Therefore, technical amendments to section 8 of the act are required to address the matter. It should be noted that, on receipt of such an application, the relevant authority, namely, SAPOL, must release the motor vehicle as soon as is reasonably practicable.

For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that, where an application is made by the person entitled to custody of the motor vehicle for its release and this falls outside of normal business hours and release during business hours would extend the period of clamping or impounding by a day or more (for example, the vehicle was due for release on a weekend or a public holiday), no additional impounding or clamping fees will be incurred. This is necessary to ensure fairness and to remove any ambiguity as to whether additional fees should apply in these cases—you see, we are not, after all, a revenue raising government. This will be confirmed in the regulations.

Ms CHAPMAN: The information given by the Attorney seems to be quite reasonable for a change. I ask the minister: is the relevant authority only South Australia Police under the principal act, or is it some other body? I do not have the principal act in front of me.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: For forfeiture it is the Sheriff.

Ms CHAPMAN: My understanding is that what has just been described is that the relevant authority is South Australia Police, which the Attorney mentioned several times. How do they fit into it?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It is the police for impounding and clamping, but it is the Sheriff for forfeiture.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 9 and 10 passed.

New clauses 10A to 10D.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I move:

New clauses, page 4, after line 40—Insert:

10A—Amendment of section 14—Commissioner may give notice prohibiting sale or disposal of vehicle

(1) Section 14(1)—Delete 'the sale or disposal' and substitute 'any owner of the motor vehicle from selling or disposing'

(2) Section 14(2)—Delete the subsection and substitute:

(2) If—

(a) a person—

(i) is to be, or has been, reported for a prescribed offence and has been advised of that fact; or

(ii) has been charged with, or arrested in relation to, a prescribed offence; and

(b) the Commissioner reasonably believes that, if the person were convicted of the offence, an application could be made under Part 3 in relation to a motor vehicle,

the Commissioner may give the owner of the motor vehicle (or, if there is more than 1 owner of the motor vehicle, 1 or more of the owners of the motor vehicle) a notice in the prescribed form prohibiting any owner of the motor vehicle—

(c) if the Commissioner reasonably believes that, if the person were convicted of the offence, an application could be made under Part 3 for forfeiture of the motor vehicle—from selling or disposing of the motor vehicle, intentionally damaging or altering the motor vehicle or causing or permitting another person to damage or alter the motor vehicle; or

(d) in any other case—from selling or disposing of the motor vehicle,

until proceedings relating to the offence have been finalised.

(3) Section 14(4)—Delete the subsection and substitute:

(4) If a notice has been served on an owner of a motor vehicle under this section, any owner of the motor vehicle who contravenes the prohibitions specified in the notice is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $2,500 or imprisonment for 6 months.

(4) Section 14(6)—Delete the subsection and substitute:

(6) If—

(a) a person is found guilty by a court of an offence against subsection (4); and

(b) the notice in relation to which the offence was committed was a notice described in subsection (2)(c); and

(c) the court is provided with evidence of—

(i) where the offence involved the sale or disposal of the motor vehicle—the value of the motor vehicle; or

(ii) where the offence involved damage to or alteration of the motor vehicle—the difference between the value of the motor vehicle before the damage or alteration and its value after the damage or alteration,

the court may, in addition to any other penalty imposed in respect of the offence, require payment by the person of an amount determined by the court to be a reasonable estimate of the value specified in paragraph (b)(i) or the difference in value specified in paragraph (b)(ii) (as the case may require).

(5) Section 14—After subsection (10) insert:

(11) An alteration to a motor vehicle that has no effect on the value of the motor vehicle, or that enhances the value of the motor vehicle, will not be taken to be an alteration to the motor vehicle for the purposes of a notice under this section.

10B—Amendment of section 16—Seizure

(1) Section 16(1)(c)—Delete paragraph (c) and substitute:

(c) any other place if—

(i) the owner or occupier of the place consents; or

(ii) it can be seen that the motor vehicle is at the place; or

(iii) a warrant is issued under this Act authorising the seizure of the motor vehicle from the place.

(2) Section 16(3)—After paragraph (b) insert:

(ba) entering into a place from which a motor vehicle can be seized in accordance with subsection (1)(c)(ii) and using reasonable force to break into or open any garage or other structure in which the motor vehicle can be seen to be stored at the place;

(3) Section 16(3)—After paragraph (d) insert:

(e) temporarily affixing clamps or any other locking device to the motor vehicle on a public road or in any other place in order to secure the vehicle until it can be seized and moved.

10C—Amendment of section 17—Warrants for seizure etc.

Section 17(1)—delete 'referred to in section 16(1)(a) or (b)) without the consent of the owner or occupier of the place' and substitute:

from which the motor vehicle may be seized without warrant in accordance with section 16)

10D—Amendment of section 18—Offences

Section 18—After subsection (2) insert:

(3) A person (other than a relevant authority acting under this Act) must not interfere with an impounded motor vehicle, or any item or equipment in or on an impounded motor vehicle, while the motor vehicle remains in the custody of a relevant authority in accordance with this Act.

Maximum penalty: $2,500 or imprisonment for 6 months.

Section 14(2) of the act allows the police, when they intend to apply to the court for an impounding or forfeiture order, to issue a notice prohibiting sale or disposal until the proceedings in the matter have been finalised. It is an offence to contravene such a notice. The offence carries a maximum penalty of a fine of $2,500 or six months' imprisonment. A person convicted of this offence is liable to an additional penalty of paying to the court an amount equivalent to the value of the vehicle. Moneys received in payment of this additional penalty are paid into the Victims of Crime Fund.

The government has identified that section 14 of the act could be manipulated by alleged offenders, so the bill provides the opportunity to remedy this. Section 14(2) deals only with the unauthorised sale or disposal of vehicles and does not contemplate deliberate damage or interference with a vehicle by its owner.

An owner intent upon subverting the forfeiture provisions can make the vehicle unsaleable or reduce its sale value by damaging it or stripping it of anything of value, including the very modifications that made it a hoon vehicle. As the law now stands, this would not be an offence under the act or any other law because the vehicle is not the property of another at the time it is damaged or interfered with: it still belongs to the owner.

Once an order for forfeiture is made and the property in the vehicle passes to the state, damage to it or interference with it may constitute an offence of damage to property or an offence of interference with a motor vehicle under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. Similarly, the sale or disposal of a vehicle after an order for forfeiture has been made may constitute the offence of theft under section 134 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act.

The government proposes that the subsection be amended to prevent an owner subverting the forfeiture provisions. In addition to prohibiting the sale or disposal of the motor vehicle, a notice will prove that the owner is intentionally damaging or altering the motor vehicle or causing or permitting another to damage or alter the vehicle. These amendments will apply only to vehicles that are the subject of forfeiture applications, not court imposed impounding, because, although an owner might try to sell or dispose of his or her vehicle to avoid impoundment, there is nothing to be gained by deliberately damaging or interfering with it, and there is no consequence of depriving the state of the proceeds of the sale. There is no loss to the state because the state was never entitled to this money.

The state is, however, entitled to proceeds from the sale of forfeited vehicles. Furthermore, in allowing the court to impose additional penalties that reflect the loss to the state of the proceeds of the sale when a vehicle is sold or disposed of in contravention of a prohibition notice, section 14(6) does not distinguish between notices issued in anticipation of forfeiture and notices issued in anticipation of impounding. That distinction is important.

The subsection should not impose the additional penalty for contravention of a notice issued under subsection (2) of the act when police intend to apply for an order to impound. This is because there is no loss to the state when a vehicle is impounded and damage is done before this occurs. Therefore, subsection (6) is proposed to be amended so that a court may impose an additional penalty that the owner pay an amount equivalent to the value of the vehicle or its depletion in value only in cases where the notice that was contravened was issued in anticipation of an application to forfeit the vehicle.

I will now move to proposed clause 10B, which is in two parts. The first aspect of this amendment will permit a relevant authority to enter any place to seize a vehicle where it can be seen without the necessity to obtain a warrant. Currently, in searching for a vehicle subject to clamping or impounding, the relevant authority has the power to enter into a place occupied by an offender or an alleged offender and, using reasonable force, break into or open any garage or other structure in which the motor vehicle may be stored at that place. The government is aware of cases where alleged offenders deliberately move the vehicle to another residence or place to evade seizure.

Where a vehicle is being stored at a place other than the place occupied by the offender, the relevant authority must either have consent to enter the premises (which is not always given) to seize the vehicle or apply to a magistrate for a warrant under section 17 of the act. Although a warrant can also be applied for by telephone, this is not usually a practicable option in most cases. This amendment authorises the relevant authority to seize a motor vehicle at any other place than those already prescribed in section 16(1) without the necessity of consent of the owner where the vehicle is in plain sight, that is, for example, on the frontline driveway or rear yard. The intention of this amendment extends to vehicles partially obscured within a garage or other like structure.

Provided the vehicle can be positively identified as being the vehicle subject to seizure under this legislation, the relevant authority can seize the vehicle. Where access is obstructed, for example, owing to a locked gate, the relevant authority will be authorised to break the lock to gain access. A warrant will still be required in cases where the relevant authority suspects that a vehicle is being stored, for example, in a locked garage, but cannot positively confirm this by sight.

Turning to the second limb of the amendment, as I explained in amendment No. 1, currently, section 5(5) of the act prohibits clamping of vehicles on a public road or other area of a kind prescribed by regulation, and this has created operational difficulties for SAPOL. The amendment will permit short-term clamping on public roads before the arrival of a tow truck to remove a seized vehicle.

It is proposed that section 16 of the act, which addresses seizure of vehicles, will be amended to permit this temporarily. SAPOL has confirmed that it will make designated towing proprietors aware of this new procedure and will also make guidelines for patrol officers to follow to ensure that any safety risk with clamping on public roads is minimised.

New clause 10C is consequential upon new clause 10B. New clause 10D introduces a new provision into section 18 of the act to make it an offence for a person other than the relevant authority to interfere with an impounded motor vehicle or any item or equipment in or on an impounded motor vehicle while the motor vehicle remains in the custody of a relevant authority in accordance with the act. The maximum penalty for this will be a fine of $2,500 or imprisonment for six months.

The amendment was necessary as a result of an incident in Mount Gambier where a forfeited vehicle was apparently damaged before it could be collected to be sold after the court ordered it forfeited under the act. The action may have been intended to subvert the penalty regime. Also, making the vehicle unsaleable, it deprived the state of proceeds of sale that would ordinarily be used to reimburse the expenses of SAPOL and the sheriff, to pay credit providers who have sought relief and to pay the Victims of Crime Fund.

As members would know, I take a lot of interest in Mount Gambier and was recently down there for dinner with magistrate Bill Morris. Mount Gambier is represented in this house by the member for Mount Gambier and in the other place by the Hon. Bernard Finnigan, resident in Crouch Street, Mount Gambier. Maybe the member for Bragg will have some cunning plan to get Liberal representation in the Mount, it is a very important city, but at the moment the only major party represented there is the Australian Labor Party. I hear a lot about—

Ms Chapman: Rory won't be too happy to hear that.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No, he is delighted to hear it. In fact, Mr McEwen and Mr Finnigan work together as a team, and I am sure that will be reflected in the results from Mount Gambier at the next state election.

Ms Chapman: I thought he was supposed to be an Independent.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Of course, he is independent, fiercely independent, like the member for MacKillop used to be. The government has been made aware of the possibility—

Mr Williams: The member for MacKillop is still honourable.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No, the member for MacKillop has never held ministerial office and is, therefore, not honourable and, indeed, his ferocity has waned as time has gone by. The government has been made aware of the possibility that a registered owner may discover that their impounded vehicle is being stored in commercial parking premises and may try to drive the car away early by paying the car-parking fee or may remove items or accessories from the vehicle, later claiming that they were stolen while the vehicle was in the custody of the state.

This conduct may be a contempt of court, and I am sure that magistrate Morris would deal with that, but, except for making a false claim, it is not an offence. It is proposed that the act should cover this conduct explicitly. This amendment will ensure that those who engage in such behaviour will be prosecuted, and I am sure that The Border Watch, that august journal of Mount Gambier which has been so fierce in its defence of magistrate Morris against the calumnies cast against him by the now Leader of the Opposition, will approve of this measure to deal with the mischief that it first reported.

Ms CHAPMAN: Notwithstanding some of the gratuitous comments of the Attorney, his explanation of the need for this amendment and the insertion of new clauses 10A to 10D is worthy of support.

New clauses inserted.

Clause 11.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

Page 5, after line 15—Insert:

(5a) Section 20(6)(a)(iii)—delete 'paid into the Victims of Crime Fund established under the Victims of Crime Act 2001' and substitute:

applied towards prescribed projects for the rehabilitation of young offenders

This amendment deletes the provision for the proceeds of this exercise (if there is any profit out of clamping, impounding and forfeiture of vehicles) to be paid to the Victims of Crime Fund and substitutes a provision for these funds to go into prescribed projects for the rehabilitation of young offenders.

The opposition has moved this amendment because, on consideration, the parties who are largely at the end of this legislation (as the Attorney has said) are colloquially called hoon drivers, and they are irresponsible young males predominantly, who not only act in a manner that is in breach of the law but also face the consequence of being excluded from their vehicles either temporarily or permanently by these processes. With the amendments, the current regime for the clamping, impounding and forfeiture of vehicles, including the ultimate sale of these vehicles, is subject to third party interests—for example, the Commissioner of Police getting back his costs of carrying out these exercises. There are some anticipated net proceeds and, quite reasonably in the legislation, they have been directed to victims.

Victims, in this situation, can be people who have been at the brunt of the offending behaviour of the guilty party and they may suffer some physical or property damage as a result of the conduct of that offender. Victims of crime in these situations can include passengers in vehicles, pedestrians on the road and other innocent bystanders. If they are a victim and suffer personal injury, there is some opportunity for them to recover some compensation by applying for what was called criminal injuries compensation via a Victims of Crime Fund. All offenders, I think almost without exception now, pay a victims levy when it comes to the successful prosecution of their offences, and it is important that these measures are in place for the application of victims.

It is also important that some attempt be made to remedy the behaviour, induce some maturity perhaps, but certainly assist some of these young people to grow up and understand the responsibility they have when they are in the possession of a potentially lethal weapon. This is also important as it is a rehabilitation approach and, to that extent, the opposition considers that it would be meritorious to allow whatever small proceeds are netted out of this type of action to be allocated to some education or rehabilitation program—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Instead of victims.

Ms CHAPMAN: As I have indicated—and the Attorney-General keeps interrupting—there are funds specifically available for victims, as should occur. This is a new source of revenue, so to speak. I do not know the figures or the actual breakdown of the proceeds for the Victims of Crime Fund from this revenue process in 2009—we have not had the Auditor-General's inquiry yet—but it may be only a small amount. In the cases on which I have information, the vehicles involved are usually of such low value that I imagine that the cost of recovery/seizure/clamping/storage/disposal outweighs the value of the vehicle, and so there may not be much in the way of proceeds.

However, it would be most helpful if the Attorney could inform the parliament how much money had been received as a result of the clamping of vehicles under this process. My understanding from the briefing provided is that the number of vehicles affected by clampings or impoundings was 3,156 in the last financial year (and I referred to that in the debate) and that fees from impounding and revenue were received as a result.

The opposition considers that it is important to direct some of this money, whatever small amount it might be, towards making sure that these young people do not do it again. The whole purpose of this legislation is targeted towards punishing those who undertake risky driving activity in their vehicles, which can cause very serious harm to others. Quite often, of course, these offenders have no financial means themselves and, in those circumstances, the capacity of a victim to recover any serious amount of compensation is negligible.

I invite the Attorney-General to indicate the net proceeds from this exercise in the past 12 months. He may have some estimate regarding the anticipated revenue that will come from the balance. I assume it will not be very much, but it is important to try to do some good with this legislation by imposing that these proceeds be applied to 'prescribed projects for the rehabilitation of young offenders', which I think was the wording we ultimately settled on.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No amendment more reflects the change in the parliamentary Liberal Party these past 10 to 15 years. The member for Bragg stands before us, on behalf of the parliamentary Liberal Party, and proposes to take money away from the Victims of Crime Fund, a fund which is unable to meet its outgoings from current levies and which relies partly on consolidated revenue, and give it to offenders.

Mr Hanna: For their improvement.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: For the benefit of offenders. We have just had the Liberal Party in another place today defeated in its attempts to stop members of the Gang of 49 going into youth detention or, if possible, to minimise their stay in youth detention. So today, the amendments which the member for Bragg canvassed in this house, and failed to get up, also failed to get up in the other place. Therefore, the government is now in a position to apply the serious repeat offender legislation for adults to juveniles.

The member for Bragg says that we cannot apply the designation 'recidivist youth offenders' to people who are in the Gang of 49, and who have a list of convictions as long as your arm, because it would stigmatise them.

Ms CHAPMAN: Not only is this debate in relation to another bill in another place—nothing to do with this legislation—but also it is completely irrelevant to this bill.

The CHAIR: I just heard that the bill is no longer in the other place. Attorney, stick to the subject.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Long time Liberal Party voters would not even recognise this Redmond-led party and its attitude to criminal justice, which seems to have adopted the Democrats' criminal justice policy, just as the Democrats are carried out backwards, but have gone even further with this amendment than the Democrats would ever have gone.

Mr Hanna: You should look up rehabilitation.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Actually, the government spends $40 million of taxpayers' money every year on rehabilitation in our prisons, and we spend an additional amount of money on rehabilitation, education and courses in youth detention. For the members for Bragg and Mitchell, it would not matter if we spent the entire gross national product on rehabilitation, because they would always come up with an excuse for offenders. That is their ideological disposition.

The amendment seeks to amend section 20 of the principal act, which deals with the disposal of vehicles. Under the amendment the proceeds from the sale of a motor vehicle forfeited under the act would, after the relevant costs and fees have been paid, go towards projects for the rehabilitation of young offenders. I am not saying that that is not worthy, but I am saying that the parliamentary Liberal Party has decided to put that above compensating victims of crime. That is the key thing about this amendment. I hope the member for Bragg will go out there on the airwaves with me tonight and tomorrow and have the guts to debate this amendment.

Mr Hanna: This really is rhetoric, because you will top up the Victims of Crime Fund.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Oh, I see: so guiltless taxpayers will pay to top up the Victims of Crime Fund after we have ripped out this money and paid it out for the benefit of offenders. I understand the logic!

Ms Chapman: What if I put in another amendment to rehabilitate you?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I know the member for Bragg takes the view that women's groups, victims groups and the Attorney-General are suffering from collective false consciousness and need to be re-educated. I know that, but really the interjection is unhelpful at this stage of the evening and, as the member for Ashford rightly says, it would take a lot more revenue than will be raised by this measure to rehabilitate me.

I draw members' attention to section 31 of the Victims of Crime Act. Under that section the Attorney-General has an absolute discretion to make payments from the fund to a government or non-government association or agency for a purpose that will, in the Attorney-General's opinion, assist in the prevention of crime or advance the interests of victims of crime.

Ms Chapman: He's allowed to do it: we're not.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: That is right: that is because I am the elected Attorney-General of the state, and currently Mrs Redmond has not been elected Premier; therefore, you are not the Attorney-General. That is right. The phrase—

Mr Venning: Stick around; you'll see it. You'll go the same way as Barton Road did: into the great abyss.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: It is funny that the member for Schubert should mention that, because a Labor Party sub-branch other than my own had a resolution before our platform convention on the weekend about Barton Road, and if I am not wrong it was carried. It is part of the policy of the great Australian Labor Party. Hope for Barton Road lives!

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: As the member for Adelaide says, she worries that if I got Barton Road open I would evaporate.

The phrase 'prevention of crime' was inserted as it was recognised that preventing crime would help to reduce the number of persons injured by criminal offending; in other words, there is a nexus between crime prevention and victimisation prevention—so to that degree we agree.

In a criminal justice context I think it is clear that crime prevention would include strategies aimed at rehabilitation. The Attorney-General's Department fact sheet 'Crime prevention—what is it?' defines crime prevention as 'reducing the risk of occurrence and the potential seriousness of a crime by intervening in the causes'. It continues:

Crime prevention can be described as having three levels—primary, secondary and tertiary.

1. Primary Crime Prevention—Directed at stopping a crime before it happens...

2. Secondary Crime Prevention—Aims to change people, typically those at high risk of becoming involved in crime…

3. Tertiary Crime Prevention—Focuses on the operation of the criminal justice system and addresses the issue of offending after it has happened. The main focus is on intervention in the lives of offenders in an attempt to prevent them from reoffending.

Likewise, at the national level the National Crime Prevention publication 'Pathways to Prevention—developmental and early intervention approaches to crime in Australia' recognises that crime prevention includes strategies such as traditional deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation strategies operated by law enforcement and criminal justice agencies.

Mr Hanna: You say it with feeling.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I am sorry to be so conciliatory this far into the evening, but the government is of the view that the existing law would allow an attorney-general to make grants to government agencies or non-government organisations for the rehabilitation of young offenders. There is no need for the amendment.

The challenge, however, is balancing the demand on the sum in the Victims of Crime Fund. The fund's prime purpose is to provide a quarantined pool of money to pay victim compensation and those costs resulting from the administration of the victim compensation scheme. In addition, grants are paid to victim assistance and care services, in particular about $1.4 million to the Victim Support Service, $72,000 to the Road Trauma Support Team and $5,000 to the Homicide Victims' Support Group.

Significantly, the member for Bragg and the member for Mitchell would be willing to take away twice the grant paid to the Homicide Victims' Support Group and redirect it for the benefit of offenders.

Mr Hanna: I wouldn't do that.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Well, you would have $10,000 less in the fund than is projected, once the bill passed. The fund currently receives revenue from several sources, including several million dollars from general appropriation. Indeed, any shortfall in the fund must be made up by an additional appropriation so that victims are not deprived of compensation, assistance and care.

Depriving the fund of an offender-paid revenue source would result in continued reliance on the non-offending taxpayer to fund victim compensation and victim support services. I am astonished that the parliamentary Liberal Party that I grew up with here in South Australia is supporting this kind of counter-cultural Marcusian nonsense. Only the member for Mitchell would know about Herbert Marcuse; I am sure he studied him eagerly in his youth.

It is also worth noting that the government already runs a crime prevention and community safety grants program. Each year grants from $10,000 to $50,000 are available to any single project of up to 12 months' duration. The grant funding is non-recurrent. The program has an annual budget of about $600,000. This year's application material lists, among example projects, antisocial behaviour, including hoon and dangerous driving.

In any event, even if the government were to agree that the money should be specifically directed to the rehabilitation of young offenders, I do not think it could support the amendment in good conscience. The amendment does not include a mechanism for holding or disbursing the funds. Can the Sheriff hold the moneys until a reasonable sum builds up and then allocate it to a project or must he select a project every time a car is sold? If it is the latter, the amounts would be small. Between July 2007 and July 2009—a period of two years—19 vehicles were forfeited; of these eight had no value but costs were incurred in their disposal, and the other 11 raised the grand total of $10,976, of which $6,133 has been paid into the Victims of Crime Fund.

The other problem is that there is no guidance to the Sheriff on how the moneys should be applied. Should they be forwarded to the Department of Families and Communities? Would the government agencies and non-government organisations apply to the Sheriff for financial assistance for rehabilitation projects? On what grounds would he assess these projects? It is not, and should not be, the function of the Sheriff to make decisions on how to use what are public moneys for rehabilitation projects for young offenders.

The parliamentary Liberal Party is in such a frenzy of rehabilitation enthusiasm and victim denigration, such as we saw from the member for Davenport earlier this evening, that it comes up with a completely harebrained amendment—

Mr Hanna: Who was he denigrating?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: He was denigrating the alleged victims, eight of them, in the Thomas Easling case.

Mr Hanna: You said they were victims then?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes. So, the government opposes the amendment.

Ms CHAPMAN: Disappointed as I am at the Attorney-General's approach to what I thought was a very meritorious contribution, I note that he raised in the course of his remarks the Barton Road reopening. This is a bill about vehicles. I do not know whether there is any hoon driving down there but, if the Attorney-General is happy to scribble out an amendment, I am happy to take it right now and we can get on with the vote.

Mr HANNA: I am going to direct this momentous debate in a slightly different direction. I admire the spirit of the Liberal Party in putting forward this amendment, because we do need more rehabilitation of young offenders in this state, but I must say that the Attorney-General's response, although perhaps overly fulsome, was effective in making some points against the amendment. It is as if the Attorney-General wants this night to go on forever.

I turn my attention to another part of clause 11. In particular, subclause (5) gives a very clear power to the Commissioner of Police to direct that motor vehicles may be destroyed or disposed of other than by sale. I simply wish to put on the record the views of some of the sober, sensible and thoughtful members of my community in relation to the headlines about cars being crushed. The people I have spoken to think it is stupid. It is just a stupid waste of resources. Tonight we have heard from the Attorney-General that, of the cars that have been seized under the legislation in the past year, I think it was—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Two years.

Mr HANNA: —two years for which we have figures—about half of those cars had no value and a paltry sum was collected from the rest. If it cost more to sell the car than you would get from the proceeds, I can understand the crushing, but I suppose there would be a cost to that. But, of course, the way it was presented to the public was that it would be some highly effective knee to the groin of the offender to see their beautiful car crushed. That is the way it was presented to the public, not in cool, rational terms that it is simply a financial decision to have the cars crushed instead of sold.

So I have no problem with it if the basis of it truly is that it is just financially sensible to crush instead of sell, but that certainly is not the spin that was put forward by the government when it came up with the idea.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I think that to understand the member for Mitchell's contribution we have to go back to when this law was first introduced to parliament in the first Rann government.

The Hon. M.D. Rann: The second, actually.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Hoon driving?

The Hon. M.D. Rann: No; the first government lasted one day—

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I am sorry; the Premier corrects me. There have been three Rann governments, apparently: the first was an oligarchy run by himself and the Deputy Premier. Anyway, after the first election victory of the Rann-led Labor Party we introduced hoon driving legislation, and the member for Mitchell was the only member of this chamber to oppose it. Not only did he oppose it in the chamber and vote against it on the voices—

Mr Hanna: You don't know whether that's the case or not.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I was here when you did it. You were a 'no', and then went on to—

Mr Hanna: Read the Hansard.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Well, 'read the Hansard'. The member for Mitchell was very careful not to have a division because, number one, he would have been the only member voting against it and the division would have been abandoned, and, secondly, he knew his opposition to the bill was electoral poison in his own state district. He did not want the people of the state district of Mitchell to know that he was against the hoon driving legislation on civil liberties grounds, so he came into this house and spoke against it. He then went on to ABC Radio the next morning and attacked me for introducing it and predicted these terrible violations of civil liberties, none of which of course have come to pass. Now he is continuing to oppose aspects of it, and tonight he condemns crushing. Well, let me deconstruct that opposition.

First of all, there are many vehicles that are forfeited that have no value. So, why would you object to crushing as a method of disposal of those vehicles when the crushing can be used as an expression of society's disapproval of what the owner of that vehicle has done? When it comes to that kind of sad music of humanity, the member for Mitchell has a tin ear. He does not understand the anger of his own constituents about hoon driving. I go to street corner meetings in his own electorate and I hear from his own constituents about how they abhor hoon driving.

Ms Chapman: Have you seen the photograph on your website of your street meeting with the little puppy dog?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: That is Gus, the independent watchdog.

Ms Chapman: And the two other people who attended?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: No, there were about 16 people at that street corner meeting, but only a few were in the—

Ms Chapman: In the photograph.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: In the photograph; yes. Thank you for that. I am glad that you pay attention to my website. On one occasion we had 34 people at a street corner meeting on the border between West Hindmarsh and Welland. That was our record. I did, however, have a street corner meeting in one of the member for Bragg's suburbs on Derby Day 2006 where no-one turned up, and that was good—

Mr HANNA: Madam Chair, I rise on a point of order.

The CHAIR: You are wondering about the relevance?

Mr HANNA: I think it was more relevant when the Attorney-General was engaging in his personal attack on me rather than talking about his street corner meetings.

The CHAIR: There is no need to proceed, member for Mitchell.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I am sorry, I was distracted by the member for Bragg. We had a good meeting at Leabrook, where quite a few people turned up, but later on we had a meeting at a higher altitude where no-one turned up and I was therefore able to listen to the running of the Wakeful Stakes at Flemington, which was good.

The Hon. M.D. Rann: Who won?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: You are testing me now—2006. But I will be there next Saturday.

Ms Chapman: With little Ben?

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Gus.

Ms Chapman: No; Dineen, I am talking about. Your candidate, not the dog. I am talking about the Labor candidate for Bragg.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: He will be in Bragg: I will be at Flemington. The member for Mitchell does not understand the depth of public feeling against hoon driving, the willingness of the public to forgo normal legal safeguards to combat it and the symbolic value of crushing vehicles as a symbol of society's disapproval. So, we are not going to crush vehicles of value! What else are we going to do? Take it down the dump? What good does that do? I think a symbolic crushing would be a good expression of society's disapproval. After all, it is plain from the figures I have put before the committee tonight that half these vehicles have no value at all.

The second thing to say is that crushing is important for those vehicles with a value but which are inherently high performance, dangerous vehicles with 'hoony' accessories on them. Why would we sell them at auction and put them back on public roads? Of course, we are going to crush them.

The CHAIR: Member for Mitchell, we do have an amendment before the chair.

Mr HANNA: That is right.

The CHAIR: You are dealing with the rest of the clause. Perhaps we will dispose of the amendment and then deal with the rest of the clause.

Mr HANNA: I want to say my piece.

The CHAIR: You will get an opportunity.

Mr HANNA: I claim my right now to respond directly to what the Attorney-General has just said about me.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Would you wait just a minute, please?

Mr HANNA: I will only take a minute, so maybe that is the better way of doing it. It is the Attorney-General who is being difficult here tonight. We are obliged to indulge the Attorney-General in his character assessment of the member for Mitchell, but he knows very well that I am very much in touch with my community. I know that the public nuisance of hoon driving aggravates many of my constituents. I know that this legislation is popular legislation. I actually had the impression that it was working better than it is, but if only 19 cars were seized over two years, that really does raise a question about whether this is legislation that does substantive good or whether it is more spin than substance. In fact, it is about as much spin as the revving wheels of the hoon drivers doing doughnuts in my local car park.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.