SUMMARY OFFENCES (DRUG PARAPHERNALIA) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Second reading.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (16:38): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I rise today to speak on the second reading of the Summary Offences (Drug Paraphernalia) Amendment Bill. As previously indicated by the Hon. Mr Kandelaars in the other place, the government supported this legislation. The government appreciates the ongoing work that the Hon. Ms Bressington has undertaken on this important issue. As previously indicated, I have met with Ms Bressington on a number of occasions regarding this matter.

I have sought the advice of learned officers within my department, who assure me that this amendment as drafted will be sufficient such that any innovative and new items that come onto the market which are clearly designed to be used for purposes such as smoking cannabis or smoking methamphetamine crystals may be identified and then prescribed by way of regulations to be prohibited items under the Summary Offences Act.

This, in turn, means that the sale or supply of a prohibited item is an offence under the Summary Offences Act, attracting a maximum penalty of $50,000 for a body corporate and $10,000 or imprisonment for two years for a natural person. If the item is sold or supplied to a minor, this will attract a maximum penalty of $100,000 for a body corporate and $20,000 or imprisonment for two years for a natural person.

We have learned that there are people in our community who are very creative, who put their energies into circumventing our laws with scant regard for the harm they cause themselves and others in our community. I commend the Hon. Ms Bressington for her relentless pursuit of these people. The government welcomes this initiative and we believe that it is firmly in keeping with our law and order policy. We believe that no-one should profit from the sale of illicit substances.

This is reflected in many of the laws we have passed and, indeed, other pieces of legislation before the house presently. It is important that all levels of drug offending have strong measures against them. We know that previous laws had the clear intention of prohibiting the sale of drug-using paraphernalia, and they resulted in the closure of several stores that predominantly sold such items. It took pipes and bongs off the shelves of other retailers.

I note that the Hon. Ms Bressington in the other place spoke about the Magistrates Court ruling in the case of Police v Koutsoumidis. This, combined with the potential for some unscrupulous traders to identify new products that clearly are intended as drug paraphernalia that would not be covered by the existing legislation, means that we need new provisions to outlaw this trade. We want to make it as straightforward as possible for police to make the sale of any drug paraphernalia illegal.

This bill will allow the government to act swiftly when the police identify these new items that are apparently intended for drug use and will allow the government to quickly prescribe these items as prohibited, thereby ensuring that the item is outlawed. I believe the need for legislation that is able to respond swiftly was expressed with erudition by the Hon. Ms Bressington in the other place when she said:

Let's face it, these buggers who sell these things in shops know exactly how to get around the law. Mr Koutsoumidis seems to be quite innovative in his attempts to test this law to its utmost.

If they want to test this law to its utmost, it is our responsibility as a government to make it strong and responsive so it will stand up to the test. In closing, I would like to thank the Hon. Ann Bressington for her continued determination to work with SAPOL and this parliament to outlaw drug paraphernalia. The government, therefore, supports this bill.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (16:43): I have indicated to the Attorney-General that the opposition will be supporting this bill and, with that, I will just make a few comments. The Attorney-General has, quite properly, pointed out the need to have flexibility in enabling items that we describe as drug paraphernalia to be prohibited by regulation, that is, to prescribe by regulation these new and inventive pieces of equipment.

The information that I am aware of under the Police v Koutsoumidis case in 2009 was that, of the 14 prohibited items that were sold from a particular store, the proceedings found that 10 of the 14 items did not sufficiently fall within the definition of a prohibited item under the act. It highlighted the need for flexibility. Clearly, the inventive criminal will think of more and more ways to create drugs.

I think the concern I would have, if any, is as we go into a proscription area, rather than identifying them specifically. It is like a number of our other pieces of legislation; if we expand this legislation to enable there to be a prohibition by regulation—that is, to that proscription—we need to be careful that we do not inadvertently capture ordinary household items which, of course, can be used to cook, bake, slice, prepare, separate in the making of drugs. With that caution, I am sure that the advice that we will receive is to make sure that we do not have drug paraphernalia, that we do not inadvertently add onto it mum's pressure cooker or anything else that could be trapped into that category.

I note also that when the Hon. Ann Bressington in another place on 2 May 2012 tabled her Summary Offences (Drug Paraphernalia) Amendment Bill 2012, she made comments to the effect that it was accepted by her, the Attorney-General and even the police that the prosecution case in the Koutsoumidis case was inadequate, rather than the laws. However, she argued that the lack of subsequent precedent or action by the Attorney-General had prompted the introduction of her bill to ensure the items are definitely prohibited under the act.

Any disappointment I express in this matter is that, meritorious as the bill is, in the contribution just made by the Attorney-General I seem to have either missed or not heard at all any explanation by the government as to why it has taken so long for them to introduce this, especially as in May this year a member in another place indicated her understanding to be that this was supported.

I think it would have been simply good manners for the Attorney-General to provide some explanation as to why this has taken so long to initiate so that this may be progressed. I think there is a level of goodwill from the Hon. Ann Bressington in indicating that her understanding was that it had the government's support. If it did not have the government's support at the time, and some new factor has come into it, I think it is reasonable that the government explains to the parliament what those factors may have been. Otherwise, I indicate that the opposition is supporting the bill.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (16:47): I thought for one brief moment I was going to get through a whole contribution by the honourable member without being criticised, but again it has not happened.

Mr Marshall: I am sure you like some constructive criticism.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: She was relatively gentle with me today, which is nice, so that was good. I am delighted everyone is in agreement on this matter. I do not think any of us wants to see these sorts of people profit from their behaviour, and I am grateful to the honourable member for Bragg and other members of the house for indicating their support for the bill.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (16:48): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.