Controlled Substances (Simple Possession Offences) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 July 2014.)

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (10:59): I am very pleased to speak on the Controlled Substances (Simple Possession Offences) Amendment Bill, which was introduced to the house by the member for Stuart. I commend the member for Stuart for bringing this bill to the house. It is a matter that I know he feels passionately about as shadow police minister and it was something that he brought to party room of the Liberal Party last year. I do not think I am breaking confidences because we took it to an election and it was indeed our policy at the election.

I note that the Labor Party did not match the policy as such, but while they have made comments about this policy first, and about this bill since, I am not aware of them identifying to this stage that they are planning on voting against it, so this provides obviously the opportunity that maybe they will vote for it. I certainly hope they do because if they do not then they stand condemned for ignoring this significant problem in our community and the remedy which is quite simple. It is not a silver bullet but it will significantly improve this situation. It will significantly reduce incidences of the drug diversion scheme being used in a way that it was not intended for.

The bill itself is simple and I will go to the trouble of explaining it. It is two pages, the first one of which contains the title of the bill, and the second of which identifies one change to section 34 of the Controlled Substances Act. The matter relates to the current act which defines that when somebody is charged with the offence of a simple possession offence—and this could be possession of an ice pipe or possession of minor amounts of non-cannabinoid illicit drugs; cannabis, of course, has its own expiation scheme which is different. So, minor offences, the things that you would not necessarily want to disrupt the court's time with as a matter of course, the sort of thing that is a natural first offence, then rather than taking somebody to court, the act describes that they must be referred to the diversion program.

This is an initiative that is quite close to my heart because prior to coming to this house I worked for a couple of years with the federal government in this area. The drug diversion initiative is a scheme funded by the federal Department of Health and they have agreements which were brought around over a number of years under the Howard government's Tough on Drugs strategy which has been continued by the subsequent Rudd/Gillard/Rudd governments and continued under the Abbott federal government.

Agreements have been made between the commonwealth and the state police departments and courts that will allow for people for whom addiction is the problem, not criminal behaviour, to be diverted into something that will look at their addiction, and look at their potential misuse of illicit substances, and that is as it should be because this is a health problem as much as it is a policing problem. However, there comes a time where the health response is not the appropriate one and a justice response is more appropriate.

This is a case in point: the Police Drug Diversion Initiative in South Australia has been operating since 2001. Over that time tens of thousands of South Australians—I think about 20,000—have been diverted and there have been several thousand more diversions themselves. They get diverted into what is called moral reconation therapy which is delivered by OARS, which is a good organisation.

The health department has chosen the form of diversion, and we established at estimates that the police have no input into that. For a number, this diversion, this moral reconation therapy—several hours of discussing the matter with appropriately qualified people—can help get people on the right track and they do not offend again, they are not caught again, the first diversion is the only one that applies, and that is great. Do you know what? The opposition also believes that a second diversion is fine, so sometimes people make a mistake, and sometimes people get caught a second time.

What this bill does is ceases the practice of endless diversions, which is currently the case. A case in point: we have freedom of information details from the 2011-12 year—and we have asked for more recent data and the former police shadow, the member for Stuart was denied—but the minister I appreciate agreed to take on notice that more recent information during the estimates process. Even as of 30 June 2012, there were 339 offenders who were diverted on three occasions and 137 diverted on four or more occasions. One guy had been diverted on 14 occasions. In fact, I noticed the Advertiser, I think a year and a half ago, reported that one person had been diverted 32 times—32 times! That person is clearly not getting the message.

I note that also in the estimates the minister provided details that only about 80 per cent of those who received the diversion comply with it and attend, and this is of concern, too. The figures from this year's budget papers identified that there were 4,650 diversions during the 2013-14 year. We know that about 90 per cent of them are on a first or second occasion. This bill will do nothing to those people; this bill will change nothing for them.

For that 10 per cent who are not taking it seriously, the 10 per cent who get nothing out of the health outcome—which is paid for by taxpayers' dollars—what is the point? It is clearly a waste of the community's money and it is a waste of police time to be arresting these people and then diverting them to something that they may not show up for and they are clearly not getting anything out of, if they are going to be coming back a fourteenth, fifteenth or thirty-second time.

The bill's intention is that after the second time they have been diverted, on subsequent occasions they will face a magistrate. If the magistrate believes that they will get something out of the diversion program, rather than a justice response, then the magistrate can choose to have them undertake the diversion. That is as it should be: the discretion being in the magistrate's hands. However, the current situation, where you can have ongoing diversions is clearly not what was intended by the agreement; it is not what was intended by the government when they made the agreement with the commonwealth, and it is doing no-one any good.

As I say, the bill is focused on simple possession offences but when the simple possession offence is, for example, related to ice pipes and so on, we are talking about very hard drugs. It is the sort of thing that the government and the community demands that we respond to very strongly and try to help people to find a better way.

Sending a message that you cannot keep doing this over and over again and we will keep asking that you go to counselling (and hopefully you will but if you do not, the next time you get picked up you will get diverted again) is not doing anyone any favours and it is not the right response from government.

With that in mind, I hope the government will take this matter seriously and support this very sensible measure. There is no reason for this to be a political measure. South Australia is the only place where this happens, by the way. South Australia is the only place where you get indefinite goes without ever having to face a magistrate.

Mrs Vlahos: No, it's the only place where you get compulsory diversion—the only place you get it.

Mr GARDNER: Yes, the only place where you get compulsory diversion. There are other jurisdictions where the diversion takes place but there are limits on the number of times before you have to face a magistrate. The discretion in New South Wales, for example, that I recall—and I have not checked in the last couple of years—when the agreement we reached in 2007 was made, the discretion was in the hands of the police officer. So, if the police officer thought you would get something out of the diversion, then you were diverted rather than that taking place immediately.

Mrs Vlahos: They are not clinicians.

Mr GARDNER: They are certainly not the conditions here, because here the legislation demands that it happen compulsorily without any consideration being taken into account of the circumstances involved. I know that there are a number of people opposite who are concerned about illicit drugs in our community, the spread of illicit drugs, and young people becoming addicted to illicit drugs, so we should be seeking measures to address this as a problem.

This bill will do that; this bill will help. I hope that the government here today indicates that it is supporting the bill—that is what it should do; that is what it knows it should do and those opposite who believe that we should reduce the amount of drugs in our community, I am sure, will do that. I look forward to seeing them do so in a moment or two.

Mrs VLAHOS: I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 22

Noes 19

Majority 3

Motion thus carried; debate adjourned.