Bills

Statutes Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 June 2015.)

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (12:03): I can say from the start that I will be supporting this legislation, but I do have some serious concerns and I look forward to having answers given to this house by the Attorney during the committee stage.

The nature of the rushing of this legislation is something that I am very concerned about and if the government ever expects me to support rushed legislation in Aboriginal affairs, well, they can kiss my derriere. The need to rush legislation through this place is something that I am very concerned about in any circumstances after having been bitten once. Let me tell you that a dog knows the difference between being kicked and tripping over, and I think we got a kicking last time.

The bill gives the executive of this government extraordinary powers. The need to ensure that the executive is subject to the will of the parliament is something that is paramount. We remember that Governor Kevin Scarce said both to the Youth Parliament and to the crowd gathered at my electorate on Proclamation Day that one of the problems with this government is that the executive ignores the parliament. He went on to say that there is no ministerial accountability. He also said that the Public Service has been highly politicised. So, be alert and be alarmed, and that is something that we are on this side. We are alarmed at the need to rush legislation through this place. If it was not for the fact that I have the utmost confidence in the integrity of our police officers, I would be very concerned about handing these powers over to the Attorney-General.

I cannot let the opportunity of the timing of the bill not be commented upon because this bill is a highly populist piece of politics. We know the timing of the bill is part of a diversion from the economy of the state, the crisis that we are facing in jobs, in debt, in deficit, it goes on and on, and tomorrow all will be revealed. I was just thinking the other day that we all remember the State Bank, but there are a lot of people who do not remember the State Bank. Some of the newer members in this place are quite young. I can assure you, Deputy Speaker, I am not displaying, I am actually just reading from a document here. It is an election poster from 1993, which states:

State Bank losses blow to $3.2 billion. SA economy worst in nation. Now 230 teaching jobs to go. 1,200 more health jobs face the axe. State Bank a disaster for Labor.

That was back then. We laid the blame on Labor then. We will lay the blame on Labor tomorrow if it is not—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Goyder, that is display. Put it down.

Dr McFETRIDGE: The history of this government is of not being able to manage the state economically. Let us hope they can get the law and order right this time around because this is not the first time we have been here on this sort of issue.

Back to 2015 and the future. Last night's TV bulletins, what did they lead with? They led with images of bikies on their road runs, bikies gathering around together, bikies being big guys in their colours, looking very intimidating. It was what is called the CNN effect. This government is using the CNN effect here again, as it has in the past. For people's information, the CNN effect is based around three areas: the images that are portrayed on the television frame the policy agenda away from hard-headed national interest towards emotional outcomes; the images that are portrayed are graphic images that undermine public morale and provide public support for conflicts; and the images also, which in many cases are instant coverage of events, force accelerated decision-making and response times.

That is what we are seeing here. We are seeing the images of bikies, the potential threat of bikies coming and intimidating and possibly assaulting members of parliament, as a need to rush this legislation through. My information is, from speaking to police whom I have known for many years and have met socially with, there is no increased threat to members of parliament, none whatsoever. The threat is there. The risk is still that small risk.

Of course, we do know that bikies have morphed from what they were. They live in a parallel universe. I know that from some of my clients who are bikies who would come in to my vet practice with their dogs. They live in a parallel universe, these people. They used to be a lot more disciplined and a lot more effective in managing their members. That is not happening now. So, yes, sure, there is a risk that one of these wannabes would get out there and do something that is outside of what the parallel universe of rules these bikies live under would think as acceptable. The need to manage these bikies is not about threats to members of parliament, but certainly, the threats and the risks to members of the public are real.

The other thing I am a bit concerned about is not just the haste that we are having this legislation dealt with but also the change we have seen in the Attorney-General. Thursday mornings in this place in private members time, the member for Cheltenham used to sit up on the backbench and rail against this place becoming a rubber stamp for harmonisation of legislation and the nationalisation of legislation. He would talk about the devolution of the sovereignty of this state to COAG, to other sources outside this place. I am sure he is still concerned about that, yet here we have the backbencher one day wanting to be King John the next.

We have heard about the Magna Carta in this place; it was 800 years the other day. We do need to recognise the separation of powers in this place, we do need to know that we are entering into new territory for this state, where the Attorney-General is the sole arbiter of decisions being made that affect people's civil liberties, and I understand there is a case where the head of ASIO is able to issue orders without consulting the federal Attorney-General. However, as I have said in this place many times, I am not a lawyer; I am just a humble veterinarian trying to get my head around complex legislation to make sure that it is going to deliver to the people of my electorate, and this state more broadly, the intent of the legislation. We know that sometimes the intent of the legislation is not always what we get.

The history of police intelligence in South Australia is certainly a long one, and we saw some of that being outlined in the 1978 royal commission on the dismissal of the then police commissioner Harold Salisbury. That royal commission was undertaken by the late Hon. Roma Mitchell. In her royal commission report the Hon. Roma Mitchell talks about how, in August 1939, immediately prior to the outbreak of World War II and following a conference of police commissioners, representatives of the defence force and the police department with reference to internal security in Australia, an intelligence section was set up in the South Australian police force.

The work of the intelligence section, when first inaugurated, was mainly aimed at continuous observation in peace or war of all potential enemy agents, saboteurs and persons of hostile or subversive association. That was the first thing. The second thing was the scrutiny, in cooperation with the military and civil intelligence departments, of publications and correspondence of all natures. The third thing was assisting the censorship authorities when requested to do so, and the fourth and last thing was a fully organised, comprehensive system for collecting and collating the information gained by such observation and for distributing it to the authorities responsible for taking preventive action.

We saw, with the special branch and the information it collected, that there was an investigation into that. There was a lot of information that was quite ludicrous, to think that people who were being investigated were involved in subversive activities. I will talk about that in a moment.

That was in August 1939, when the South Australia Police founded its first intelligence division. Then we hear that in 1949 then prime minister Chifley talked about the role of ASIO. He said that the security service should be kept absolutely free from any political bias or influence and, when speaking to the head of ASIO, said:

You will impress on your staff that they have no connection whatever with any matters of a party political character and that they must be scrupulous to avoid any action which could be so construed.

The Hon. Roma Mitchell, in her royal commission report, wanted to ensure that not only should natural justice prevail but that it did prevail, and that investigations were justifiable.

The Special Branch, that morphed from the initial 1939 intelligence division, was the subject of an investigation by Justice White back in 1977. I understand that Justice White examined records at the request of the then premier Don Dunstan. In his report Justice White said that there he found a mass of information relating to matters, organisations and persons having no connection whatsoever with genuine security risks. There were many Labor Party politicians, ACTU officials and university students, and also one card-carrying senior Liberal parliamentarian listed in the Special Branch files. He was listed as a communist because some decades before he had been standing at or near a communist bookshop.

We do not want to go back to those days, and we certainly do not want to go back to the days of J. Edgar Hoover in the FBI. We all remember Helen Keller, the blind, deaf and mute author. She was listed by the FBI as a writer on radical subjects. So we need to be very careful about where we are going on security matters—the powers we are giving to the police and the powers that we are giving to the Attorney-General.

Some of the responses to the outbreaks of violence, particularly acts of terrorism, have been quite amazing. I just remind the house that in the 1960s in the commonwealth democracy of Canada in response to the escalating terrorist acts by the Front de libération du Québec (FLQ), the then prime minister Pierre Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act. All civil liberties were suspended, tanks occupied the streets of Montreal, soldiers in Ottawa patrolled parliament and 450 people were arrested overnight without warrant with many being held as suspected FLQ members. We do not want to go down that path.

Let us hope that this legislation we are looking at today, we are discussing, we are debating, will not go down that path of a slippery slope to where the honourable intentions of our Attorney today (and I do hold him in high regard) do open up doors for people in the future to undertake less worthy acts. In 2005 when we were debating in this place anti-terrorism legislation, I came across a quote from the then president of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, John  von  Doussa  QC. Mr von Doussa said:

Sacrificing basic individual rights for security may seem tough and pragmatic but is short-sighted and fraught with danger.

Mr von Doussa said:

No-one can argue with the intent, it is just the process.

And that is the problem we have got today. It is not the intent, it is the process that we have the issues with—the need to make sure that everybody in this place understands how this legislation is going to work, that the intent of the legislation is going to be what we actually get, that the bikies are going to be dealt with in a manner that is not going to be dragged out, is not going to put other people in jeopardy, that there is no collateral damage and that there is no smart lawyer well funded by bikies who is going to get funds to make challenge after challenge.

I suppose if I have one particular issue with this legislation it is that during briefings from the police (and I thank the police for those briefings) we were given information that in Queensland this legislation appears to be working in the way it is intended (and there is a history, as we know, of bikies using standover tactics and extortion), and because of this legislation the numbers of reports in one year had gone from zero to 70. People were feeling confident about that happening.

As I say, I am not a lawyer. I do not understand the technical arrangements and legal arrangements in place if police today want to undertake a search warrant or some sort of other covert surveillance of, say, bikies. I think that has to go to a Supreme Court judge which then has to be considered and which is locked away in the judge's safe, so I am told. That I understand is open to challenge and the sources of that information given to the judge could be revealed.

I would like to have this clarified by the Attorney. I want to know that, in this legislation if he is given information by the police, which is highly sensitive information, that cannot then be subject to some smart lawyer having the courts through technical reasons release that information and then put those people in jeopardy. To me that would be an absolute travesty for anyone who is seeking protection from this legislation and who would then be set up, as we know, for potential retribution from these criminal organisations.

We remember Mike Rann declaring war on the bikies. In fact, remember Mike Rann declaring the end of World War II. Apparently nobody had officially done that, and he actually did that in this place. He said we were going to bulldoze the bikies. He said we were going to do so many things that unfortunately have not come to fruition, and that is why we are here today.

I do not want to be in this place in future years having to look at legislation again and again to amend it. We have seen some amendments; they had to come into this place yesterday. I hope that is the last of it other than those that are being offered up by the opposition. I hope that the Attorney is able to do what we want him to do, and that is ensure that South Australians are not being subjected to threats and intimidation from these bikie gangs.

They call themselves one percenters, but I understand there are a bit over 300 of them, so they are far less than 1 per cent of the South Australian population; but we do need to deal with them. It is disappointing that we need to put police resources into them. Remember Operation Avatar back in February 2001 took up dozens and dozens of police. We have seen motorcycle runs where over 100 police have to attend. If this legislation can reduce the resourcing by police for controlling bikies, that would be a good thing, so that we can have police in other areas.

I just hope this legislation does work. I am concerned about some areas of it. I am certainly very concerned about the parliament handing over powers to the executive of the government, as the Attorney has done in the past with the devolution of powers of this parliament to others. The need to make sure it does work is what our constituents, the people of South Australia, want and it is what they deserve.

Ms COOK (Fisher) (12:21): I rise today to talk about the Statutes Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill 2015. I thought long and hard about talking to this bill, not because I do not want to or because I am scared to, but because it is just so important to our community. I have sat in this place listening to the opposition speak in support of this bill while actually literally saying nothing to support it. I have heard a whole pile of rhetoric. I have heard thousands of words picking any previous efforts over the past decade to bits while offering nothing practical to help in terms of moving forward and doing what we really want to do to this amazing state, and that is to keep us safe, to protect our civil liberties, to protect our kids, to protect our families, to protect the community environment and provide an environment where our neighbours can all walk the streets without fear for their lives, where, in fact, we can all just sit in our homes without fear, without worry and in harmony. We all have this right. This is about our civil liberties. It is the civil liberties of the law-abiding citizens of our community.

I have worked in nursing for long enough to know that bad things happen to good people, and invariably it is not good people who do these things to others. What do these groups do? What do the groups that we are talking about do, these outlaw gangs, these gangs that we want to see the end of? They deal in drugs. They cook drugs, they deal drugs, they push drugs, they peddle drugs, they traffic drugs, and they make our kids take drugs. They provide drugs to our children, and our children die. They change our children's behaviour. Our children do not deserve this. Our children deserve to be safe. It is up to us as a government to make sure that we have the tools in our community to ensure that our kids are safe.

What else do they do? They deal in guns, they deal in illegal firearms. They offer these up to people who have no skills, no reason, no want for guns, other than to cause harm upon other people. We need to stop this. They do not think about our civil liberties when they go into a cafe and shoot people. They do not think about the harm that they can do to innocent people, innocent bystanders. Why should we worry about their civil liberties?

What else do they do? They go out and they actively seek vulnerable young people, vulnerable young people who have not been loved and cared for in their lives, vulnerable young people who do not know where they belong. These children do not know anything else. These young people get wrapped up into these gangs, they get coerced. They get forced to deal, traffic, take, use, push drugs. They get forced to steal, they get forced to be violent. They have no choice. The only thing that has ever made them feel good in their lives is these gangs. These vulnerable young people need to know that they belong elsewhere. They do not need to belong to these gangs. We do not need our vulnerable young South Australians forced to be involved in crimes like this. We need to stop this, and we need the tools to stop this.

I listened yesterday to the member for Heysen talk about having a covert meeting in a cafe with someone she cannot talk about. What sort of person is that who needs to be meeting covertly and not be named? It is a criminal. These criminals do not have the right to be protected, these criminals do not have the right to walk the streets in our community, and they do not have the right to gather in groups. We need to stop this.

In relation to protecting rights, do not worry, your rights are not at the front of their mind as they cook, traffic, deal, push and force drugs on your kids or sell illegal weapons that get used to kill our kids. My son, Lewis McPherson, Jarrod Almond, three examples of young people who would be alive today without drugs or without guns. Yes, we have to protect the innocent people in our community. It must not be, though, that innocent people become suddenly criminals because of association. We need to make sure that there are steps within this legislation to protect people from being blamed, being accused, being found to be criminals, purely by the fact that they are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

That needs to be balanced with the fact that our children can be in the wrong place at the wrong time and lose their lives. How do we stop this? It is simple. I say to these groups of people, 'You will not get in trouble, you will not be arrested, you will not be caught colluding, you will not be accused of association if these groups stop dealing, stop cooking, stop making, stop selling, stop pushing drugs; stop selling, stop dealing in firearms, stop killing our kids. Do this, hang with these people, get in trouble, get arrested, get accused wrongly, I will be the first person to stand up and protect your civil rights, being accused of hanging with these people who have no right. No right to be free, no right to be out on the streets in gangs, in groups, endangering our kids.'

The opposition has mentioned past attempts that this government has made. We make no apology for trying to protect members of our community. I know nothing about using populist bills to distract from anything else here in this house but I do know that the longer we leave this piece of legislation and the longer we leave this, the more kids die. Friday, I will be at a funeral. I will be attending the funeral of a young man who died because he took one pill.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform) (12:27): I thank all of those members who have made a contribution in relation to this bill. I just thought I would deal with a few matters—first of all, matters of historical nature only. I am not going to rehash things that have been dealt with at length, particularly by the member for Bragg about the Totani case, the Wainohu case and all those other cases, I think that is on the record already.

I can indicate that the government was looking at New South Wales legislation—particularly in as much as it refers to consorting which is part and parcel of this bill—at the time when the Queensland decision came down. At this time, SAPOL requested that legislation based on that and the New South Wales consorting laws be provided to them. This is in the context of SAPOL having asked successive attorneys—that is, both me and my immediate predecessor certainly, and perhaps attorneys before that for all I know—for help in dealing with this group of people.

Their request has been absolutely consistent and it has helped us deal with these people. The parliament has had a couple of different cracks at doing that but I want to make it clear to everybody that any suggestion that police have asked for one thing and then it was not good enough and they have come back asked for something else. The police are not lawyers, they are not parliamentarians, they have always asked for the same thing, which is the capability of being able to deal with these people by means of disrupting their capabilities to associate.

I asked the police for some time to work with me and those who advise me on making the provisions we presently have to enable a declaration to occur to work. I have to say that we had numerous meetings about this, and my only requirement was that I wanted to have a reasonable degree of satisfaction that, if we were to make such an application, it would have a very good chance of being successful in the courts, because it was my judgment that to make such an application and have that fail would be very counterproductive and would result in some of that triumphal behaviour that we saw after the Totani decision came down.

So, eventually I was persuaded that the probability of us being able to achieve that under the existing legislation was small, and that was further frustrated, confirmed or confounded by the patch over that occurred when the Finks overnight became the Mongols. That had a lot of consequences for all the work that hitherto had been done in relation to that and meant that a completely new set of problems had arisen.

So, it was in that context that I heard the request from the police, who said, 'Look, there is now an alternative methodology.' It was one that was known to me, because the commonwealth has done this, used this methodology for some time, and it has been upheld by the High Court in Thomas and Mowbray, so it is a known proposition. I thought long and hard about this, and I asked the police to provide me with briefings, asked them to provide me with information, and I spoke to them and considered and reflected on this matter at length before going to cabinet and asking for permission to prepare a bill in this form.

I have to say that I made it very clear publicly—I think as far back as March—that this was what we were doing. The only material thing that could possibly have been in this bill was the method of declaration; the rest of it essentially is embroidery, if I can use a term once frequently used by a former prime minister, but the main bit was the declaration method, and that has been out there in the public domain at least since March. So, nobody should be suggesting concern that it is something that has taken anybody by surprise.

So, here we find ourselves 10 or 12 days ago, when I sought and obtained the leave of the parliament to both give notice and introduce the bill on the same day so as to maximise the opportunity for members to have a think about it, and this week I had hoped we would get the bill through both houses.

As to a few of the remarks that have been made by those opposite: first, the issue about timing. I can assure members that the timing of this bill's introduction has absolutely nothing to do with anything other than the time it takes to get a bill drafted, approved by cabinet and ready to introduce into the parliament. As soon as it was ready I actually sought out the Leader of the Opposition (I think that on that particular occasion the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was not available, but that does not matter) and said, 'Look, we've just got this thing, cabinet has just said yes to this thing, we want to move it on quickly.' We told him what we intended to do, and that is exactly what we did the last week that the parliament was here with, I might say, the cooperation of the opposition, for which I thank them.

So, the motion that we are somehow doing this now to distract attention from the budget is absurd in the extreme. If there is one event in the parliamentary calendar that blots out the sun for weeks, it is not estimates, it is the budget. It is not estimates. I know that some of the younger members here probably thought it was estimates, but, no, it is not estimates, it is the budget. The idea that we were trying to hide the sun behind Mercury is so absurd that it is laughable, absolutely ridiculous. So the proposition about timing is—to use a word that has been used on occasions by the Deputy Leader—piffle!

Ms Chapman: Budget week, not estimates week. You haven't been listening!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, I have. I know it is budget week and it is the budget tomorrow, I believe. Can I put it another way: the idea that we would distract attention from an elephant using an ant is a bit peculiar to me, quite frankly. I am surprised they did not actually offer the converse proposition that we were attempting to divert attention from the ant because it was in the same week as the elephant. But, anyway, so much for the timing issue. At the bottom of this, there is a very simple question—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The question has been in the public domain, put there by me since March: do we want to tackle these people, or do we not, by means of a declaration put through parliament? That is the question. It is a simple question, and it has got a simple answer: it is yes or no; not maybe—yes or no.

What we have actually got now is an opposition in complete and absolute disarray, an opposition which is incapable of bringing a proposition to this house because they cannot agree on anything, an opposition that cannot come in here with a set of amendments to this bill, an opposition that reserves the right to carp about it, complain about how long it has taken, complain about how quickly it has been moved along, complain about this, complain about that, but not move one single thing in this house.

It is a typical situation where, as always, the opposition uses this chamber as a joke for the people in the other place, who are then delegated the responsibility of doing all of the 'heavy lifting', as they engage in what they prefer to call 'improvement'. So, here we are, in this chamber, and an opposition has come in with no position other than, 'We will support it in here'—except two of them won't. Good luck to them; fair enough. I understand their positions and I am sure they are genuine, but—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The point I am making is this: they come in here without a position, and so they do not have to embarrass themselves by saying yes or no they try to have a bob each way. Each one of the speeches says, 'On the one hand, these people are terrible; on the other hand, we can't possibly do this.' Yes, some of them say, 'We'll vote for the thing in here,' with this sort of tantalising, pregnant question sitting at the end: 'But what will they do elsewhere? Well, wait and see.' They had a party room meeting on Monday, and all I can deduce from the behaviour so far is that at that party room meeting they were so riven by internal conflict and incapacity to follow the leadership of their leadership team that they resolved to do nothing, because to do nothing avoided having to do something.

I have to say, in this business, I have more respect for people who disagree with a proposition and have the guts to stand up and say that, and to put their votes (and, if necessary, their amendments) where their mouth is, or those people who agree with you. I have a lot more respect for those two groups of people than the bob-each-way types who want to have the opportunity of being able to have a free slap at the government for doing this but do not have the guts to put up their proposition.

We have had nothing but whingeing from this mob about this thing for the past day, but not one amendment was moved here, and no indication as to what they are finally going to do when it gets to the other place. Why? The answer is: they do not know; they do not have a position. This mob that would be a government cannot even make up their mind on this proposition. They cannot even make up their mind, and, in fact, what they are doing—the group of them that sit in this chamber—is outsourcing decision-making to that very special cohort of people who sit in their party room but come from red leather seats. We will have to interrogate the minds of these people to find out what ultimately the opposition position is.

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order: the Attorney is reflecting on persons sitting in another place.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, only in general. I think he is coming back to the nub of everything—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am, and look—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: —and he is getting ready to finish off, aren't you?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —if it helps, I can reflect in a positive way and say I am sure that if any of them applied for Mensa membership, they would be granted.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: So, anyway, I get on with this point: the opposition does not have a position. Members of the opposition have actually undermined the leadership team of the opposition. They have denied the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition the ability to come into this place and say something conclusive about this issue. They are very happy to leave them hanging out there in the breeze, waiting for the determination from the group that sits in another place to decide what ultimately will be the fate of the leadership team of the opposition.

We will see this beautifully, as I understand it, because at least one member of the opposition in this place has indicated as of yesterday that they will vote against what apparently is the opposition position on this in this house—leave aside the reservation they have made about the other house. There may be two who vote against it; let's see. The question is really very simple—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: To be or not to be.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Indeed, to be or not to be—to be hopeless or not to be hopeless, that is the question. The fact is, I think the public in South Australia is entitled to know whether those who would be king, to pick up the member for Morphett's analogy, have the guts to actually tell the public whether they are supporting this bill or not, because so far they have not.

I make this point: we are doing everything we can to support SAPOL in this matter. I recognise and I do not ridicule the proposition that this is taking things to a new level in terms of how seriously we are pursuing this matter, and I accept that. I am a person who has legal training, so I understand the significance of what we are doing, and I can assure members I did not come to this position lightly.

It really comes down to this: there is a group of people in our community who do not accept any of the values or mores that most of us expect our citizens to live by. These people believe the laws that apply to the rest of us do not apply to them and need not apply to them, and can be treated with complete disregard. I do not accept that is okay. If the South Australia Police tell me that this is a tool that they need—and I have reflected on it, I have thought about it and I have brought my best conscience to this, and have come to the point of view that I agree with them—it is my duty to bring this forward, first of all to my colleagues and then to the parliament, and that is exactly what I am doing.

I say this to members opposite: all of you, please—because this apparently will not pass both houses today or tomorrow—go back to your electorates and you speak to people in your electorates and, aside from the noisy few, you see how concerned they are about our parliament having failed consistently to deliver to our police the tools they need to deal with these individuals.

Ms Chapman: Because you are so hopeless, that's why.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The member for Bragg interjects that we are hopeless.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: And you are ignoring it, aren't you?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: And I am ignoring it, because we are just getting on with it. You see, we are getting on with it; that is what we do. I do not say this with any sense of happiness or satisfaction at all, but I do make this point: every week that this matter remains unreasonably unresolved, every week that the requests made of the government and given directly to members of the opposition by SAPOL, who have briefed them and the crossbenchers—every week that those requests go begging for an answer, every week those requests are denied is a week where our community is at risk unnecessarily, because SAPOL is not being put in a position to do what it tells me and has told members opposite it needs to do to deal with this group of people.

So, I would ask members opposite, who actually do have electorates—I will just let that hang there for a moment—to talk to some of their colleagues who do not and just explain to them what their people in their electorates think about this and also perhaps share with them your concerns, I would hope, that if one of these outrages occurs in the next few months, as we have seen in the past, and, even more concerning, if that outrage happens to be in your electorate, how they are going to help you justify this inaction. That is the question.

I hope all members opposite are very comfortable with this idea because I will be making it clear every time I get a chance to do so, just as I have about why, on four occasions, they have refused to pass a bill which would bankrupt serious drug traffickers—four times.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I remind the opposition that we stand ready to deal with this this week. I am happy to have it go through here in a few minutes. I can ask my colleagues up there, who are generally very helpful, to agree for it to go immediately through the other place. I make that offer.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We can do it today or tomorrow, I do not care—whatever you like—and then the monkey is off your back because nobody can say you have held it up.

Ms Chapman: No, you will be holding it up because you have got all those amendments.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The deputy leader is, unfortunately, called to order.

Ms Chapman: I've got a clean slate.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, not now. In question time, you will only have two chances to transgress.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I make the point: please, get past the fact that there are some recalcitrants within your party room. Get past the fact that there is no sense of esprit de corps that enables you all to work together. Get past that and support something that the police want to help us make our community a safer place.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Ms CHAPMAN: In respect of clause 1, I would like to ask the Attorney about consultation. Firstly, has there been any consultation on this matter with the judges, including the Chief Justice and/or Chief Judge of the Supreme Court and District Court who currently deal with serious and organised crime criminal matters? If so, what was their response and, if not, why not?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The answer to that is that to the best of my recollection I have not canvassed this with them, although I may have mentioned it in passing at some meeting perhaps, but that is not surprising because I think, by any definition, this does not involve the courts. It is a matter of government policy: it is not a matter of legal interpretation or legal efficacy that we are dealing with here. As this imposes no burden on them, as this in fact relieves them theoretically of a burden they presently have but have never been called upon to discharge, I have not considered that it would be necessary to discuss this matter with them. It needs to be remembered that the judiciary have never claimed to be, and quite rightly so, arbiters of government policy. This is a policy decision.

Ms CHAPMAN: Given that is not consistent with the fact that when we were discussing with them in 2012-13 the role they would play in declarations, is your position then that, because you are simply proposing to relieve them of some responsibility, they no longer have a say?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The courts do not have 'a say', in the sense that they have an entitlement to participate in the conversation about the drafting of legislation with some statutory exceptions. What they do have, particularly in the case of the 2012 amendments, is the reasonable expectation that they will be consulted about matters of detail concerning their courts which they will have to administer. That is why in 2012 we did speak to them about things because we wanted to make sure that what we were suggesting was, from a practical courts' point of view, something that was manageable and reasonable. So, of course we spoke to them about that.

As a supplement to that, there is floating about a document which is sort of a protocol about what courts should be consulted on, and I will read this very briefly: 'So, we,' being the government, 'would be seeking feedback on laws which change the structure of the court', this does not, 'alter the jurisdiction or powers of the court', this does not, 'relate to judicial officers', this does not, 'relate to judicial functions', this does not, 'affect the administration of the courts', this does not, 'affect the distinctive character of the courts', this does not.

Ms CHAPMAN: I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on whether in fact they might be dealing with judicial reviews, for example, in respect of your proposed further regulatory power, and we will, certainly. Have you consulted the South Australian Law Reform Institute; if not, why not?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, the Law Reform Institute is a project-orientated organisation which has a board of management which selects topics in consultation with me and the Law Society and the University of Adelaide Law School about particular pieces of work it will do in the nature of a law reform recommendation. It is presently quite busy on a number of things. Again, it is not their role to determine government policy.

From time to time, in areas where there is either particular complexity or where there has been a longstanding inability for governments of whatever colour to get around to looking in detail at some rather esoteric matters they are referred off to that institution—so, no. And they are not in a position where they can provide a response at the drop of a hat. They are in the position where, after going through lengthy processes which could take months, and on at least one occasion it took the best part of a year or more, to provide a report.

No, I do not routinely consult with them on anything. All that happens with them is that from time to time they suggest a topic that might be useful from their research point of view. We, the government, may suggest topics and, if there is agreement, then the topic is researched.

The CHAIR: Are we happy to put the short title?

Ms CHAPMAN: I have a further question on consultation. A number of other parties have become apprised of the detail of the bill because it has since been tabled in the parliament. This includes the Independent Education Union of Australia which has written to both you and the Premier this week advising you of the resolution passed at their meeting last Friday night:

The IEUA believes that freedom of association is an essential aspect of a democratic society and should not be lightly conceded as a quick fix for alleged criminal activity allegedly prevalent in certain groups. The role of government is to establish suitable laws and enforcement capability to deal with illegal activity in its own right. The IEUA deplores the proposal of the SA government to restrict the association of members of certain named motorcycle clubs rather than deal directly with individuals and their actions.

As you would know, Attorney, in addition to that resolution they have sent out in their email to you and the Premier that they are appalled at this draconian removal, etc. That having occurred, have you advised any other unions of the same concerns that have been raised by the Independent Education Union in respect of the anti-association extensions in this legislation?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The short answer is no, and even the passage that was read out by the member for Bragg identifies some of their lack of comprehension about what these people are actually reacting to because it implies that all measures relating to individual policing or individual prosecution of these people for individual behaviours have been suspended or terminated in preference to some form of collective punishment. That is just quite simply wrong.

The bottom line is very simple. We as legislators have to make a decision: do we support this or do we not? The fact that a group of people whose primary function is to manage and supervise independent schools has a concern about the way in which we choose to support SAPOL is a fact and it is noted. However one dresses it up the policy proposition is pretty simple: you are either agreeing with it or you are not.

The CHAIR: I would like to put the short title.

Ms CHAPMAN: I would just like to have another couple of questions.

The CHAIR: Not on the short title though. The questions are not actually relevant to the short title. If we move down—

Ms CHAPMAN: The short title, with respect, does relate to matters relating to the whole of the bill.

The CHAIR: That is right, but I am informed by the table that we can continue down the clauses as really the questions have nothing to do with the short title.

Ms CHAPMAN: We can deal with it in 'commencement' if you like.

The CHAIR: We would like to have the questions relevant to the actual clauses, so I am going to put clause 1 as printed, which is the short title.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Ms CHAPMAN: Given that the Independent Education Union have highlighted their concern about its effect on all the trade union movement, have you taken any action to approach the Independent Education Union to allay their concerns about what you see as a misinterpretation of the legislation?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, I have not, but I do intend in due course to drop them a note to the effect that they need not be perturbed because, unless they are an organisation devoted to criminal activity, which I have never heard anyone suggest, they need have no fear whatsoever that the police commissioner will come and visit me or a successor in my role and suggest that they be a declared organisation. If that did happen, there are checks and balances through judicial review and through the fact of the regulations being capable of being tossed out by the parliament, not to mention the self-evident stupidity of somebody proscribing an organisation which represents the teachers in independent schools. I am happy to drop them a line and allay their fears.

Ms CHAPMAN: In respect of that aspect, Attorney, you are really perhaps trying to be dismissive of the real concern, and that is that they are not suggesting at all that their membership are members of or associating in anything to do with the activity of criminal organisations—in the broader sense, outlaw motorcycle gangs. What they are concerned about, which you know full well, is that persons who might attend in public, when they are undertaking their meetings, protests, rallies or the like, can be caught up in that if there is a member of that congregation who has been even a former member of an outlaw motorcycle gang. The implications to other innocent persons who are in association with them in a public place are vulnerable to potential charging, arrest and being put to the expense of having to prove themselves to have that removed.

You know exactly what they are concerned about and they have made it absolutely clear, so I am heartened to hear you say that you are going to write to them and dispel them of that concern. I would be interested to see what you have to say in that correspondence. In the meantime, I think I understand that you have not pursued that with any other body in respect of consultation in the union movement.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended from 13:01 to 14:00.