CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION (LOOTING) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 July 2010.)

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:58): I support the member for Davenport. People who engage in looting, particularly during a time of bushfire emergency, would have to be amongst the lowest of the low. They are probably on a par with those who steal from people attending funerals. That has happened to some of my relatives when they have been attending a funeral—people came in and did the farm over.

I believe looting should be classified and treated as an aggravated offence, because it offends against not only decency but all aspects of how humans should behave in their interaction with others. So, I support this bill and I hope that, if not this bill, something similar is adopted by the government. As a parliament, we have a chance to tighten up the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, and I think it is a good measure.

The SPEAKER: Member for Davenport.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (11:00): I thank the member for Fisher for his response—

The SPEAKER: Member for Davenport, before you speak—you will close the debate.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Madam Speaker, you gave me the call to conclude the debate.

The SPEAKER: No, the member for Little Para wants to speak on this.

Mr ODENWALDER (Little Para) (11:00): I oppose this bill and indicate the government's opposition to it.

Members interjecting:

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes, that's right. This bill seeks to make an aggravating feature of offending against division 2 or 3 of part 5 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act of 1935 (that is, offences of theft or robbery) where they were committed in a place where, at the time of the offence, there was either:

in force a declaration under part 4 of the Emergency Management Act 2004; or

residents and others in the place or in the vicinity of the place had been advised by radio by the South Australian CFS that they should activate their bushfire action plans and that advice had not been withdrawn or ceased to apply; or

residents and others had not been able to return to the place after leaving in response to a declaration or broadcast.

This bill also amends the penalty provision applicable to the offence of theft under section 134 by prescribing a maximum penalty for an aggravated offence of 15 years' imprisonment. For a basic offence of theft, the maximum penalty is to remain unchanged at 10 years' imprisonment.

As the second reading explanation for this bill revealed, it was introduced in response to the bushfires in South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia where there have been reports of people scavenging through people's burnt-out houses and businesses and stealing from them. There is indeed merit to addressing this issue, and it is the government's intention to do so, but not in the way proposed by this bill.

In response to recent reports of looting occurring in fire-ravaged properties both in South Australia and interstate, the minister has recommended that the Attorney-General's Department commence consultation with SAPOL and the commissioner of fire and emergencies to develop legislative action directed at looting amongst other matters regarding bushfires and this will commence shortly.

Under the current legislation, the most obvious offences with which a looter could currently be charged are theft, robbery or serious criminal trespass. This bill does not include the offence of serious criminal trespass as prescribed under part 6A of the CLCA. Given that most looting occurs at businesses or residences, this is a significant omission.

Secondly, the government is critical of the use of the activation of bushfire action plans as one trigger for a feature of aggravation; that is, the bill goes beyond requiring there to be a declaration under part 4 of the act but permits an announcement by the CFS to activate an action plan. Bushfire action plans are a common occurrence and for that reason alone should not form a trigger for a feature of aggravation.

The CFS has been consulted and information sought as to the criteria the CFS uses to determine whether an announcement will be made and as to the statistics on the rate of their use. The CFS has two key triggers for making a public announcement for residents to activate their bushfire action plan: when a total fire ban is declared or when a bushfire information message is released, specifically for ignition/development messages. The wording is standard and recommends that people activate their bushfire action plans.

The public communication for these is done through multimedia, as we know. For total fire bans, a media release is produced and circulated to all media outlets across the state, including all print media, radio and television stations including regional outlets. Bushfire information messages are sent to all print media, radio and television stations including regional outlets for all three media, with specific verbal contact with ABC radio and radio FIVEaa to confirm receipt. The most recent stats for 2008-09 reveal the following:

the total number of fire bans declared for the calendar year 2008 was 247 spread across 48 days; therefore, on 48 days of that period the CFS issued a media release recommending that people activate their bushfire action plans;

the total number of fire bans declared for the fire danger season in 2008-09 was 277 spread across 50 days; and

the total number of bushfire information messages for ignition/development issued for the calendar year 2008 was 18 and, for the fire danger season for the same period, it was 25.

As can be seen from these statistics, it is clear that the use of bushfire action plans is fairly common during the bushfire season. Given that the CFS makes such announcements on a regular basis, it is not appropriate to prescribe this as a trigger point to constitute a feature of aggravation. This issue aside, it would also be extremely difficult to prove that an alleged offender knew of the announcement to activate a bushfire action plan when lighting the fire. The government opposes the bill for these reasons.

The SPEAKER: Member for Davenport, now you can have the call.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (11:05): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The SPEAKER: I don't know why you moved that.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I look forward to the government, after its consultation, bringing back the amendments to my bill.

Motion carried.