Bills

Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offenders) Amendment Bill

Conference

The Legislative Council, having considered the recommendations of the conference, agreed to the same.

Consideration in committee of the recommendations of the conference.

The Hon. M.L.J. HAMILTON-SMITH: I move:

That the recommendations of the conference be agreed to.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am pleased that we have now received amendments from the Legislative Council, which have been the subject of a discussion between members of the House of Assembly and the Legislative Council and the deadlock committee. There were several meetings and the important resolution that was reached, which is now accommodated in the recommendations, is to do two things, essentially. The first is to deal with the confiscation of assets of drug dealers in a way that is consistent with what happens in Western Australia and the Northern Territory and not progress a novel model of its own that the government put up three times and sought our support for.

The conference agreed that, if we followed the traditional model, if I could describe it that way—that is, via a court, rather than a new executive decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions—we would have a model which is tried and tested and which operates successfully in other jurisdictions. With that, the whole issue of having an executive determination, the need for a review and an appeal process became obsolete. The committee resolved that we would restore a confiscation of assets procedure through the traditional model, and the government agreed with that.

After three years, I tell you that that was welcome to my ears and, I am sure, welcome to other members of the committee on the Legislative Council, because the Legislative Council has been consistent in its presentation to us as the House Of Assembly that, if you have a process that results in the automatic confiscation or forfeiture of assets, not just of what you own but what you occupy, have control of, etc., then you must have a proper process to review it, especially to ensure that we have a release valve—an opportunity for someone who might be inadvertently caught up in the net of the world of a drug dealer to apply for the release of that asset.

It has happened in Western Australia, where a party allowed their house to be occupied by, I think, a grandson, from memory, who grew drugs and manufactured drugs in that property. As a result of confiscation laws, the house was taken and, of course, the grandparent in that case came forward to say, 'Well, look, I didn't know my grandson was involved in this activity. This is my asset and I'd like to have the opportunity to keep it.' It is important that we have that, and that has been accommodated in this amendment.

The second is an agreement that we reached to have annual reporting of how this operates—the number of persons, the number of restraining orders issued, the details of properties forfeited. It is still novel legislation, certainly in South Australia, although it is operating in other jurisdictions, and it is something that we as a parliament need to keep an eye on. The way we do that is to provide an annual report, just like we do for the number of covert surveillance operations by police officers and other types of information that we, as a parliament, need to know about and keep an eye on.

We have all sorts of other annual reporting outside the department's annual reports. I think one of them is the number of abortions or terminations per year. They are not always in relation to police activities or the capturing of criminal intelligence and the like. Sometimes, they are just other sensitive material which the parliament, from time to time, has asked to be reported annually. This is one of them, and I appreciate the Attorney-General's indication that he is willing for that to be provided.

It is fair to say that, in the operation of this legislation, from the government's point of view, we might have some good years and we might have some bad years. We might have two or three drug dealers who turn up and are prosecuted and convicted and their assets are confiscated, in which case the Attorney-General might get some multimillion dollar windfalls—we would hope, if we are going through this procedure—that will be available for the government to use. In other years, he might have nothing.

Of course, it was for the committee to determine, as well, the Hon. John Darley's original proposal to ensure that at least a portion of these funds be held for their application in rehabilitation programs for drug user victims. We had sought on our side of the political spectrum that the funds should be paid into the Victims of Crime Fund, which is a fund under the control of the Treasurer, who has application by statute, and generally administered by the Attorney-General. To resolve that issue, the committee considered these matters and it was ultimately agreed that the moneys would be paid into a fund to be described as a rehabilitation fund and that it would be used for rehabilitation generally.

The importance of that amendment is incorporated in the recommendations under amendment No. 3, clause 22, which essentially makes provision for:

Attorney-General as additional government funding for the provision of programs and facilities, for the benefit of offenders, victims and other persons, that will further crime prevention and rehabilitation strategies.

So, instead of being a resources fund, which the government had initially proposed to make available for capital infrastructure, IT programs and things of that nature—a very broad base under the control of the Treasurer and the Attorney—the committee agreed that the application of these confiscated proceeds would be available at the Attorney-General's behest to be applied towards rehabilitation generally.

We as a committee accept that that may be to victims and/or perpetrators of crime but, importantly, the rehabilitation process is to be there. It does not have to be confined to drug offences or where there are drug victims, but victims of crime and perpetrators generally. We feel this is very important. It is certainly an area of high need in our community both in prison and out of prison, and we need to address that as best we can. In this case, this little goldmine of opportunity of funding will at least be targeted to the area of highest need and not be applied to things that would otherwise be met from the Courts Administration Authority or the Attorney-General's budget.

With those few words, it may be three years in coming, but I am delighted that finally the government has accepted the new process, the application of the funds and the annual reporting, all in a manner which the committee has maturely and responsibly considered. This will bring to a close a three-year chapter and I think the third time that the government has tried to push a line which was clearly not acceptable to the parliament.

I thank all members of the committee for their attendances, because there were multiple, and our secretary to the committee for their contribution. I should also thank Ms Aimee Travers from parliamentary counsel, who as always diligently and promptly attended to the amendments as required by the committee. I am sure if the Attorney were here he would also commend the members of the committee, Ms Travers and our wonderful secretary to the committee.

Mr Odenwalder: The Attorney is here.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am sorry. If he were able to speak to us today, I should say.

Mr ODENWALDER: I want to make a few short comments. The bill has in fact had a six-year history, not a three-year history, as far as I can reckon it. The bill in fact predates me in this place because it formed part of the 2010 serious crime election policy that the Labor Party took to the 2010—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr ODENWALDER: Sorry. Yes, that's right, the policy formed part of that policy platform. The policy as it was then has obviously been through various transmutations since then, but it is worth going over a bit of the history of it. The original policy stated that the proposal will amend the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act to target persistent or high-level drug offenders to provide for total confiscation of the property of a declared drug trafficker.

As the deputy leader said, it has gone through various transformations for various reasons. I am pleased that it has in fact finally been settled on because we believe, and I believe the deputy leader believes, that confiscating the assets of serious drug dealers is the right thing to do. It has formed part of a suite of measures that this parliament has considered over the last six or so years in terms of serious and organised crime. It also some related legislation in terms of confiscation of assets and unexplained wealth, which all have their complexities. We have all finally agreed on the details.

I will go over a bit of the history just to put it in context. It was introduced into parliament in May 2011 and passed by this house in July 2011, but it was in the other place of course that the opposition and crossbenchers effectively made the policy inoperative, and so the bill was ultimately lost, and the parliament was prorogued at the end of 2011. The bill was reintroduced in February 2012, and the process was repeated. It appeared that the bill was going to be the subject of a deadlock conference, but for various reasons this did not happen.

A new bill, the prescribed drug offenders bill, was introduced on 16 October 2013. It was passed on the same day and moved to the Legislative Council on 18 October. The council moved that the second reading be deferred, effectively losing it because the state election fell in this period and parliament was of course prorogued again. The passage of the bill was thwarted, and so was our 2010 election policy. In 2014, the Labor Party pledged to pursue it again and bankrupt what we called the Mr Bigs of the drug trade. I was certainly part of that strong law and order campaign we ran in 2014 and proud to be so.

The bill was again introduced into this house in May 2014, and it was passed on 18 June. It was passed with amendments by the Legislative Council in December, but then parliament was prorogued before this could be taken any further. The bill was again introduced and passed in this house in February 2015. The second reading commenced in March 2015. The bill was read a third time and passed by the other place, but then on 10 September this house was alerted to the position of the other place on this bill, which was unacceptable, and forced a deadlock conference. I will not go over what happened at the deadlock conference. I think the deputy leader covered that area very well.

However, I do want to put on the record the view of government and the Attorney-General that the cooperation of crossbenchers and the opposition to finally reach an overall correct outcome is welcomed. As the deputy leader said, much of the debate between the houses turned on various questions. First of all, she outlined the judicial oversight of the whole process, the annual reporting to parliament, which I think is important, and also questions of what and by whom it can be confiscated and where the confiscated assets or funds should sit, who can spend it and on what.

I think we came down obviously on the side of some very sensible suggestions, including the broad consensus that the money should be spent more broadly than just on drug rehabilitation, that it should be spent on rehabilitation generally for victims and perpetrators, so really giving the Attorney and the DPP some quite broad parameters with which to address the causes of crime. I congratulate all members and offices involved in this bill. I commend all involved for finding common ground. I do want to thank parliamentary counsel, Aimee Travers, for her help and her forbearance. I look forward to the speedy implementation of this bill.

Motion carried.