ANTISOCIAL AND CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. R.B. Such:

That this house establish a select committee to inquire into and report upon:

(a) the causes of antisocial and criminal behaviour in South Australia;

(b) the strategies that could and should be used to reduce and deal with offending; and any other matter.

(Continued from 11 July 2012.)

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (11:46): I was potentially going to quote from a document, but I will make sure that I do not do that. The honourable member for Fisher moved to establish this select committee on 11 July 2012, and it is a pleasure, after a number of months, to have the opportunity to express my views on it. I am pleased the member brought the motion to the house, and I am pleased to indicate that the opposition intends to support this motion.

I understand the government has preferred that some of the matters that might have been encompassed by this select committee be dealt with by the Social Development Committee, those being mostly related to alcohol. But, for the benefit of members, I will remind them that the honourable member for Fisher's proposed select committee was to:

....inquire into and report upon:

(a) the causes of antisocial and criminal behaviour in South Australia;

(b) the strategies that could and should be used to reduce and deal with offending; and any other matter.

When he moved the motion, the honourable member for Fisher made the specific point that 'the Social Development Committee has got enough on its plate to keep it going for many, many years', and consequently would not be an appropriate body to deal with these concerns. Indeed, the concerns he has raised in moving this motion are significantly broader than those encompassed by the Social Development Committee and what they are going inquire into if, indeed, they get around to doing so before the election.

While it is apparent that the government may well be planning on opposing this motion, and this select committee may never see the light of day—at least certainly not before the election—I think it would have been useful. I think it is worth the parliament's consideration, and I hope the government do indeed recast their position.

I have some specific concerns I think the select committee would find value in considering, but, just in terms of the broader issues the member for Fisher raised in July last year, he talked about the causes of crime, the way they are dealt with by the government, and how we might reduce related offending. He also identified that it is in the government's financial interest to do so, as each prisoner we have costs over $70,000 each and every year—a significant saving if we can stop people from undertaking a life of offending behaviour, not only to the government's budget, of course, but significantly to the lives and lifestyles of those whom they offend against.

The member for Fisher referred to the Victorian Drugs and Crime Prevention Committee who—I was going to say 'recently', but I realise now it is probably over a year ago—tabled their report on their Inquiry into Locally Based Approaches to Community Safety and Crime Prevention. I think that is an example of the sort of recommendations that might well be considered by the select committee.

As I said, the motion is cast in broad terms. I think there is value for such a committee to pay particular reference to the harm caused by, and the causes of crime related to, illicit drugs in South Australia which is not being dealt with by the Social Development Committee's alcohol considerations. South Australia has the most permissive expiation regime for cannabis in Australia, allowing expiation for possession of up to 100 grams of cannabis. No other state or territory permits more than half this amount: in the ACT it is up to 25 grams, New South Wales is up to 15 grams, and Western Australia is up to 10 grams.

At the same time, the number of people caught driving under the influence of illicit substances has jumped from more than 1,000 in 2011 to 2,767 at the time these notes were written (which may possibly have been before the end of 2012, when I first planned on speaking on this motion), and 527 of that 2,767 (approximately 20 per cent) tested positive for THC, which is, of course, the significant chemical found in cannabis. One in every 16 South Australian drivers randomly screened for drugs returned a positive result for a proscribed drug in the year to July compared to the rate of one in 26 the previous year and one in 40 for the 12 months to July 2010, police say.

In 1998 Australia was at a high point in use of illicit drugs. Cannabis use was far more broadly accepted than it is now, and other illicit drugs were far more broadly accepted and more widely used than they are now. Over the course of the Howard government's Tough on Drugs approach there was a tripartite focus: on education of the community through broad-based advertising and direct marketing to parents to encourage them to discuss issues with their children as well as education campaigns through the schools; there was a focus on health and rehabilitation, which saw the greatest expansion in support for non-government organisations providing drug treatment in Australia's history; and there was a focus on law enforcement, with the broadest expansion of funding for Customs, border protection and policing of drugs in Australia's history. So through education, enforcement and treatment, that three-focus attack on drugs was significant and by 2007, when I was last working in the area, the rate of drug use had gone down significantly.

It is very concerning to me to find that in South Australia, between 2009 and 2012 at least, the rate of people caught driving with cannabis in their system has gone up so much. Clearly it is something that warrants consideration, and I think it is the sort of thing that this committee would be able to investigate. Illicit drug use is a significant cause of antisocial and criminal behaviour both in terms of the lack of judgement and ability of people to control themselves when they are under the influence of illicit substances as well as the crime that comes from finding the money to support one's addiction when that addiction makes lawful enterprise and employment so much harder to hold down.

I think this committee would be valuable in approaching those issues, so I hope the government has a 'road to Damascus-like' conversion in its view on this select committee. I commend the member for Fisher for bringing the motion to the house, and commend the motion to all members.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.