Bills

Summary Offences (Liquor Offences) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 27 September 2017.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:04): I rise to speak as the lead and possibly the only speaker on the Summary Offences (Liquor Offences) Amendment Bill 2017. I indicate that, whilst we will be supporting the bill, there are two areas of amendment that we consider need to be addressed to implement this reform. This bill was introduced on 27 September by the Attorney-General to amend a number of acts but essentially in respect of the legislation for the sale and supply of liquor in specific communities.

Much has been said about the operations that relate to the activities for the provision of alcohol in regional communities where there has been a restriction in respect of the supply and consumption of alcohol. Grog running is seen as an activity by others to obviously undertake the profitable enterprise of sale. The South Australian government currently has legislative restrictions to reduce the incidence of alcohol-related harm in these regional communities.

These restrictions are focused on Aboriginal communities predominantly, but they include conditions on high-risk liquor licences under the Liquor Licensing Act 1997, which limit the amount of specific liquors that can be purchased per person, per day and restrict the type of liquor sold completely for off-premise consumption. Secondly, they include specific communities being prohibited under the legislation from possessing and consuming liquor on the lands, with some exceptions. These communities include the APY lands, the Umoona community, near Coober Pedy, and Yalata Reserve.

It is noted that there are a number of other dry areas that have been prescribed for the purposes of having a prohibition. One of them is within Whyalla Norrie. A second is in the Port Augusta area. Adjacent to Port Augusta abounds public space that is under prohibition. Others are in Port Augusta West and the Ceduna and Thevenard areas, which provide for areas of prohibition. Essentially, the geographical parameters of these prescribed areas are identified. The nature of the prohibition is identified, usually in relation to the consumption of liquor being prohibited within the boundaries and, essentially, for the ones I have described, these are under continuous prohibition.

Metropolitan people have not been immune from experiencing dry zones or precincts. Some might recall that Victoria Square had been identified as an area of excessive consumption of alcohol and restrictions were put in place. Some, of course, would argue that all that does is transfer the problem, or the potential problems that arise out of people aggregating, consuming too much alcohol, getting into fights, causing disruption, being a public nuisance when someone goes to use an ATM facility and all those sorts of things, somewhere else when we introduce these prohibitions, but it is a process that is in operation.

Whilst there has been some concern expressed that this bill is almost anti-Aboriginal in its nature because of the prescribed areas in the APY lands, etc., it is a mechanism that has had the support of many in their own communities who want to prevent the destructive behaviour that emanates from the use of alcohol and drugs. In this case, it is in relation to liquor licensing, so we are really talking about alcohol consumption.

In an effort to reduce the incidence of alcohol-related harm, this bill is being introduced, firstly, to create an offence in the Summary Offences Act 1953 relating to the possession and transportation of liquor for the purpose of sale into the area designated by the minister. It is also broad enough to cover taxi drivers, who could, of course, be in the business of alcohol running.

The bill also gives power to the police to stop, search and detain vehicles within a designated area without any reasonable suspicion of a grog-running offence. Proposed regulations are essentially indicated to be prepared to provide for a 100-kilometre limit to the application of this power but, from our side of the house, that is not adequate. We consider that there needs to be some geographic restriction in the act and, accordingly, I indicate a foreshadowed amendment to deal with that.

Certainly, from our perspective we see a 100-kilometre radius as being excessive and unnecessary. If we are going to have one, then it ought to be within a five-kilometre radius, and I will speak to that in due course. It is fair to say that the Law Society, having considered the effect of these things, is also concerned about aspects of the bill. They, like others, suggest that it is not appropriate to have a lower standard than 'reasonable suspicion' targeting Aboriginal people.

We agree that at the very least we need very much to confine this so that it deals with the issue of the problem and is not really a backdoor attempt to have an expanded area of power that may be used for other purposes, but it ought to be very clear that we are targeting a specific problem—in this case, dealing with the people who deliver and provide alcohol to the prohibited areas. In short, we will be saying that the police power to stop, search and detain ought to be the same for every other area in relation to the Summary Offences Act.

The bill also allows the minister to prescribe an area of land where the consumption and possession of liquor is prohibited under the APY, ALT and Maralinga Tjarutja Land Rights Act. The Law Society suggests that is discriminatory against Aboriginal communities. On this aspect, we do not agree with the Law Society to the extent that, yes, clearly this is targeted and there are times when that is for the benefit and protection of people living in those communities.

I have not consulted at length with a number of people in the communities specifically on this bill, but I can say that over the last 15 years there have been many occasions when I have consulted with particularly parents who are worried about their children's consumption of alcohol, loss of licences, getting into criminal activity and accessing drugs from marijuana to, in more recent years, ice and other drugs.

They recognise that the safety of their community, and particularly the women and children in it, is in high need when drugs or alcohol are available. They themselves have said, 'We need protection.' Whether that is to say, 'We need to be able to have our children go safely to school,' or, 'We want women and children in the household to be protected against domestic violence,' they are all aspects that can be exacerbated by the excessive consumption of alcohol.

Under the Liquor Licensing Act, there will be the creation of an offence for a licence holder to sell liquor to a person reasonably believed to be an unlicensed seller intending to sell liquor, which is then sold on by the seller. The maximum penalty is $20,000 for the first offence and $40,000 for subsequent offences. It will also create an offence under that act for a person in charge of premises to permit the unlicensed sale of liquor on those premises. They are proposed strategies which are, in fact, endorsed by the Law Society.

The amendments to the Criminal Investigation (Covert Operations) Act 2009 extend the meaning of 'serious criminal behaviour' to include the new offences listed that I have referred to as contravening the Liquor Licensing Act and new offences under the Summary Offences Act. That is a reasonable extension.

The Criminal Law (Clamping, Impounding and Forfeiture of Vehicles) Act 2007 allows for the forfeiture of a vehicle of those persons found guilty of a designated liquor offence as created in the new offences under the Summary Offences Act. When I was reading that part of the bill, it reminded me that there was recently a publication made, I think quite proudly, of an artist on the APY lands who had undertaken work to redecorate abandoned vehicles, turn them into dot paintings and light them up with candles and lighting to the extent of making them an art space, which I thought was an interesting, novel, recycling initiative.

It is fair to say that in relation to this type of reform the people who are doing the grog running need to be detained. Those who are receiving the product, with a view to onselling it to people in the communities, and the equipment they use, particularly vehicles, obviously all need to be targeted for the purposes of it being effective. So, in general principle, we support those measures.

As I have indicated, I will be foreshadowing amendments to bring the police search powers in line with procedures under sections 68 and 68A of the Summary Offences Act. That particularly is to ensure that the current proposed procedures do not solely target Aboriginal communities and, secondly, identify the prescribed area rather than identifying within 100 kilometres of an alcohol-free area, as proposed by the government. With those few words, I indicate that we will otherwise be supporting the passage of the bill.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (11:16): I rise also to make a contribution on the Summary Offences (Liquor Offences) Amendment Bill. I find it sad that we have to discuss these things in this place. What we are seeking to do here—and this is not the first time and, unfortunately, I do not think it will be the last—is to create a separate set of laws for different parts of our state.

We all come into this place living in the one community of South Australia, and we all struggle with the concept of what we are seeking to do here. To the greatest extent possible, we all should abide by the principle that we all live by the same law, that we all have to abide by the same law and that none of us is above the law. I understand that we cannot always continue to have these principles stop us from making practical change where we see problems. I also understand that we cannot continue to expect different results by continuing to do the same thing.

If we are to indeed change the way that our society interacts with alcohol, we need to be practical in how we deal with the issues that confront us. It is why we need to try new and different approaches, and it is why we as an opposition will be supporting, in the broad, this piece of legislation. We know that there are issues. We know that the effects of alcohol-induced violence ravage many of our rural communities. We know that this leads to adverse outcomes, especially for children and their ability to have a safe upbringing, and the definite future flow-on effects that come as a result of those children not being able to have the same sorts of opportunities that many of the rest of us take for granted.

I look forward to the day when we can repeal these laws because they are no longer necessary, because we have solved the problem: that we have managed to bridge the cultural divide and that we have managed to help to change the way that remote communities look at alcohol. I look forward to hopefully still being in parliament on the day that we can repeal these laws. Unfortunately, that day is not today, and we need to continue to move on and do what we can.

Whilst we must put in place measures to reduce the abuse of alcohol, which is imperative, we must not lose sight of the broader goal, namely, a just, fair and safe society where we are all equal, where we have equal expectations and equal outcomes for each other and want as much for everybody as we want for ourselves. I had the same concerns in relation to another piece of legislation that we put through this place in Gayle's Law, where the government was admitting that nurses are less safe in these prescribed communities and that geography has as much to do with safety as many other things. Whilst, again, we supported that legislation wholeheartedly, it does not mean that we did so without a level of discomfort, and that same discomfort certainly applies to this legislation.

But, first and foremost, our responsibility is to those who cannot look after themselves, and in this case we are talking about the victims. We are talking about the children who are so often the victims of alcohol-induced violence. We are looking after the women, the partners, the wives, who are so often the victims of alcohol-induced violence and the people themselves who are harmed, as they seek to deal with the ravages of addiction to alcohol. It is why, again, we will be supporting this piece of legislation, broadly.

What the bill seeks to do is to create an offence in relation to possession or transportation of liquor for the purpose of sale into an area designated by the minister. That, again, we support in the practical, but it is frustrating that it needs to be specific rather than general. The bill also seeks to give police the power to stop, search and detain vehicles within a designated area.

The deputy leader has explained a number of concerns we have in relation to this clause, that essentially this is one in a series of measures in which the government has attempted to reduce the threshold by which vehicles in particular can be stopped and searched but which we have seen in a whole host of legislation over the past couple of months, whether it be in relation to drug testing or whether it be in relation to child exploitation material.

This is a consistent theme from the government, but we on this side believe there should be reasonable suspicion. We believe that there should be an accepted standard, and that standard should be consistent, and we will be seeking to ensure that these changes remain consistent with other search powers that police have. This will also allow the minister to prescribe an area of land where the consumption and possession of liquor are prohibited.

Again, I echo the words of the deputy leader that whilst the intent of this act, it seems quite clear, is to target Aboriginal communities and the APY lands, there are other prescribed areas already in place. I know every year I sign off on dry zones around New Year's Eve around Mannum. There are a number of dry zones even in my community that exist around the place, and I accept that in this case, whilst we are talking about predominantly Aboriginal communities, it is not restricted solely to them and that the minister has the power to make it much more broad.

An amendment to the Liquor Licensing Act also creates an offence for a licence holder to sell liquor to a person reasonably believed to be an unlicensed seller intending to sell the liquor, which is then sold by that seller. There is a maximum penalty of $20,000 for a first offence and $40,000 for subsequent offence. I think this is at the heart of what this legislation is trying to do. We are taking that one step back from those who are consuming and abusing alcohol to those who seek to profit from that abuse. Again, this is something we wholeheartedly support.

The bill also creates an offence for a person in charge of a premises to permit the unlicensed sale of liquor on those premises. Again, the obligations we put on our licensed premises are strict and strong and we should be ensuring that everybody who seeks to sell alcohol works under the same conditions; in this case, we are going one step further around the prohibition in certain areas. The bill also extends the meaning of 'serious criminal behaviour' to include the offences we are seeking to enact here and also allows for the forfeiture of a vehicle if a person is found guilty of a designated liquor offence. These are all things that we certainly support.

In closing, can I say that it brings me no joy to be discussing this in this place, but we accept that it is an attempt to try new things to try to tackle this problem from different and new angles so that we can get a different outcome, that we all understand that we simply cannot accept the status quo and that we must look forward. That is why we will be supporting the legislation.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:24): I would like to put on the record a few words on behalf of the people of Stuart. I support wholeheartedly anything that will help people to deal with problems associated with substance abuse. We are dealing with alcohol here in particular. I have to also recognise that nothing is ever really going to work until the person in the middle of the problem takes some responsibility for himself or herself. That is a fact that we all know and, given that there are difficulties with that across the state, it is quite appropriate for the government to become more involved in these issues than it already is.

It is also important to say that, while this legislation need not apply only to Aboriginal communities, it is currently very focused on Aboriginal communities. I would like to put very clearly on the record that, while there is a great deal of difficulty with regard to the handling and consumption of alcohol in Aboriginal communities, it is not only Aboriginal people and communities who have these problems. Many communities all over our state, many people all over our state, have difficulty with regard to alcohol; it is not only Aboriginal communities, but this bill is very focused on Aboriginal communities.

I have what is a fairly unique insight, at least with regard to all my parliamentary colleagues: I have actually been a licensee in the outback. I have held liquor licences in my name. I have been a director of a company that held a liquor licence from February 1999 through to October 2007. It was not a lifetime or a whole career, but it was a significant chunk of my working life. In fact, for a period of time I simultaneously held five different liquor licences, one of which is already categorised as a high-risk licence. I note the bill talks about high-risk licences, not necessarily high-risk licensees. They may be the same or they may be different, but this talks about high-risk licences.

I do not think for a second that when I ran roadhouses with liquor licences in the outback I did it perfectly. I know for a fact that I did it to the best of my ability. I know for a fact that, generally, I had good staff and we tried our very best. But, through trying our best, we did come in contact with the challenges that exist in this legislation. We dealt with those challenges every day, seven days a week and, at one roadhouse, 24 hours a day.

It is a very difficult issue to get the legislation just right and I support the government in their endeavour to do so. I accept the fact that it is almost impossible to get this legislation right, and I support the deputy leader, who is the lead speaker on this issue, in identifying some areas where it is not yet just right. For the sake of brevity, I will just touch on a few key issues.

Obviously there are already some conditions on high-risk licences and there are already some communities that are identified in existing legislation. This bill looks to create an offence relating to possession or transportation of liquor for the purpose of sale into an area designated by the minister, and I think it would be quite appropriate to make that an offence. It also gives police the power to stop, search and detain vehicles within a designated area without any reasonable suspicion of grog running. That is a problem for us. Without 'reasonable' suspicion is something that we will almost always baulk at in just about any legislation.

This bill also creates an offence for a licence holder to sell liquor to a person reasonably believed to be an unlicensed seller intending to sell liquor. Straightaway, we have an anomaly there. Police could search vehicles without any reasonable suspicion, yet, in relation to the liquor licence holder, there must be reasonable belief that there is inappropriate reselling. I think it would be important to match those two up. In all these issues, you need to have reasonable suspicion that an offence is being committed, or is about to be committed, to have some of these powers come into play.

Another key issue is that this bill allows the forfeiture of vehicles of persons found guilty of a designated liquor offence. I support that entirely. In fact, I think that penalty could be used in many other areas of law in our state, but I will go into that another time. I also want to highlight the fact that unintended consequences will play a part in this legislation, while recognising that it is up to the parliament to try to get it as good as possible. Of course, it is up to local police to try to enforce it as well as possible and then it is up to the courts, potentially, to try to rule on it as well as possible.

I really do understand that it will not be made perfect. There are some unintended consequences and I will give you an example. At the Marla Travellers' Rest, a fairly significant business which I used to manage with investment partners and other staff right on the edge of the APY lands, there was a rule in place with regard to selling takeaway alcohol to people coming and going from the lands. It was actually against our licence to sell takeaway alcohol to anybody who was coming from, going to or lived on the Aboriginal lands.

The way we had to deal with that was to get a piece of paper signed by the purchaser of the alcohol to state that he or she was not doing any one of those things or did not fit that category. It was a bit of a pain, it was pretty difficult and it was administratively awkward, but it was for a good cause—no problem at all. One of the reasons it was for a good cause was that for a very long time the Aboriginal elders from the APY lands had requested and supported that being the case.

There is a whole range of other issues that come out of running a liquor licence in that situation, which I will not go into at the moment. What I really wanted to use that example for was to explain one of the things that would happen. Everybody in the district knew this was how it worked. Locally, everybody fully understood and almost everybody complied, but occasionally a person who lived on the lands and who was not entitled to buy takeaway alcohol would go to an unsuspecting tourist. It was not always done this way, but I will give a real-world example that happened many times, and not the only example I can give you.

An Aboriginal person, who knew the rules very well and who had lived in the district all their life, would go to an unsuspecting, young couple from Austria who had pulled up to buy some fuel, some loaves of bread and sausages and continue on. The person would go up to this tourist couple and say, 'Do you know what a dreadful country this is? Do you know what a dreadful place this is? They refuse to sell alcohol to Aboriginal people in here. The people who run this place are racists. If I give you some money, would you go and buy it for me, please, because they will sell it to you and then you give it to me?' Let me just say again, this was not the norm, but it did happen.

The unsuspecting Austrian couple would say, 'Of course. This is just dreadful. This is completely unacceptable. Of course I will help you. You should never be allowed to be treated this way.' They would go in, buy the carton of beer or whatever it was, sign the sheet to say that they did not live on the lands, that they were not going to or from the lands and that the alcohol they were buying had nothing to do with that. They would go outside and give it to the person who asked them to buy it and that alcohol would then disappear somewhere it was not meant to disappear to.

That example is not a reason not to try to improve our laws in this area, but in that example the poor unsuspecting foreign couple would be breaking a very serious law. We need to be sure in the process that I stepped out before that in trying to get it as good as possible in parliament, in trying to have police enforce things as well as possible, in trying to have courts deal with things as well as possible, these types of issues can be taken into consideration.

The way that they will be taken into consideration best, and will have the best opportunity to be successful with regard to their development and their implementation, is if local Aboriginal leaders, the people who want the right thing for their people, are involved in the creation of these laws, as well as local licensees, local police, local business and community leaders, and, of course, people in Adelaide who have experience in this area.

I support this effort in principle, but I certainly have the same concerns as my colleagues in regard to identifying the prescribed area and also the capacity to undertake a search without having reasonable cause to believe that that search is warranted.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (11:34): I rise today to speak on the Summary Offences (Liquor Offences) Amendment Bill 2017. As for a number of other members on this side, this relates to issues in my electorate, in particular to the west of the state where, of course, Yalata has been declared a dry zone. As other speakers on this side have indicated, we broadly support the intention of this bill and understand that the Attorney sees a need for this. The deputy leader and shadow attorney has foreshadowed some amendments, which we will be coming to in the committee stage, I am sure.

The bill was introduced this year to amend a number of acts that legislate the sale and supply of liquor in specific communities. The bill essentially aims to address grog running in regional communities. I am here to tell you, Deputy Speaker, and this house that grog running is a very significant, serious, damaging but also very profitable industry in some parts of the state.

The South Australian government currently has legislative restrictions to reduce the incidence of alcohol-related harm in regional communities. These restrictions are focused on the Aboriginal communities predominately and include conditions on high-risk liquor licences under the Liquor Licensing Act, which limit the amount of specific liquors that can be purchased per person, per day, and restricts the type of liquor sold completely for off-premises consumption.

A number of liquor retail outlets in the western part of the state have come under these conditions. The biggest, I am sure, is the Ceduna Hotel, but others include those at Thevenard, Purnong, Nundroo and, I understand, Border Village and possibly even Smoky Bay, so a really large geographical area is being conditioned by the government in relation to sales. It also includes specific communities being prohibited, under legislation, from possessing and consuming liquor on the lands, with some exemptions. These include the APY lands, the Umoona community and Yalata Reserve, Yalata being in the electorate of Flinders and some 200 kilometres west of Ceduna.

The bill seeks to make some amendments to the existing act, and it will create an offence relating to possession or transportation of liquor for sale into an area designated by the minister, as in one of those prohibited areas. This amendment is also broad enough to cover taxi drivers, which is a concern at the moment for the ALRM. Certainly, taxi drivers have been fingered in this, rightly or wrongly, as some who could potentially profit from grog running. However, it is not only that: it is also members of the community who, I might add, are prepared to travel vast distances purely and simply to get grog to other people within their communities. It is profitable. If you can buy a carton of beer for $50 and sell it for $200, that is very profitable.

This bill also will give the power to the police to stop, search and detain vehicles within a designated area without reasonable suspicion of a grog-running offence. In other words, it increases the power of the police. I know for a fact that police have been looking for this authority for some time and will be pleased to see it. Proposed regulations will define designated areas as within 100 kilometres of an alcohol-free area; in fact, that regulation will cover most of the state. Our deputy has flagged the intention to propose an amendment to that. It will also allow the minister to prescribe an area of land where the consumption and possession of liquor is prohibited.

The Law Society's submission on this suggests that this is a discriminatory act against Aboriginal communities. The member for Schubert spoke on this very issue and, in fact, they are right, it is discriminatory. The reality is the dry zones are in place within Aboriginal communities, so it is already in, like it or not. It will also create an offence for the licence holder to sell liquor to a person reasonably believed to be an unlicensed seller intending to sell the liquor, which is then on-sold by that seller. The maximum penalty for this is $20,000 for a first offence and $40,000 for subsequent offences.

I have had correspondence, and I know the Attorney has also had the same correspondence, from the Ceduna Foreshore Hotel Motel, who feel they may at some point in time get caught up unwittingly in this legislation. They have had an incident in the past where they have had to defend accusations in court, accusations of racism. The risk is very real for the Ceduna hotel and other licence holders in the west of the state. I will talk more about that in a moment.

The legislation also allows for the forfeiture of a vehicle of those persons found guilty of a designated liquor offence as created in the new offences. In other words, police can pull over, search, detain and extract the liquor from the said vehicle, which is more than they are able to do at the moment, despite the fact that they may have very strong suspicions that grog running is occurring. There are concerns locally in the Ceduna area and the west of the state with this bill and how it might have an impact.

It is worth mentioning that there have been significant efforts made in recent times to combat alcohol abuse and substance abuse within the communities, particularly those of Ceduna and Yalata and other Aboriginal lands. Part of that has been the local liquor accord, and certainly all stakeholders have been involved with that, including the Ceduna Foreshore Hotel Motel, which I mentioned before, but also any number of service providers—both state and federal government and also NGOs—who all have a stake in this. Everyone is intending to do their very best.

Throughout that local liquor accord process a number of measures have already been implemented, including restricting the sale and supply of alcohol to all people, not just to vulnerable people. Records are made of all sales. If I bought alcohol at the Ceduna hotel, I would need to show my identification and a record would be made of that purchase. I do not believe myself to be a vulnerable person, but my point is that it is across the board. The community hotel, as a liquor licensed vendor, has concerns that the proposed legislation will again focus on what the staff reasonably believe (or ought reasonably believe) to be the case, and they are fearful that they may get caught up in that.

I talked about the local liquor accord, and underpinning some of those conditions is the ID Tech system recording the identity of each and every purchaser of alcohol, but there is also the cashless welfare card trial, which has been based in Ceduna. This, too, was not without its controversy and critics, but it had the support of the majority of people in Ceduna. It certainly had the support of the local mayor and the local council. By all indications, it seems to have been a success, so much so that the trial has been extended in time and has also been extended to other parts of Australia. The cashless welfare card allows welfare recipients who are unable to purchase alcohol with their welfare card and can only do so with a cash purchase. Essentially, it restricts the amount of money they have available for alcohol and gambling.

I was also talking last week with the manager of one of the non-government organisations in Ceduna and he had a slightly different slant on things. He felt that this legislation was reactive rather than proactive and felt the need very much for us to still be more proactive within communities, to seek to educate and seek to give opportunities to residents of communities to develop a reasonable relationship with alcohol which has been very difficult to achieve. I will be quite frank: within the Ceduna township, there are those still who suggest that a wet canteen at Yalata might be a good idea.

I know that the police are very much opposed to this and, as a result, the government is very much opposed to this, but there certainly are those in the town who feel that it is worth considering. There are other Aboriginal communities around Australia that have a wet canteen, for want of a better term, where mid-strength beer may be served for a period of time on each and every day. Grog running occurs because the demand is there for the grog. As I said before, it is profitable, but it is essentially a supply and demand situation.

At the moment, grog is getting into Yalata and people are drinking and getting drunk at Yalata. People are also coming from Yalata into Ceduna to party. They spend a week or two in Ceduna to enjoy themselves and, essentially, drink. In making this contribution, it would seem that almost everybody in Ceduna has a drinking problem; that is certainly not the case. In fact, when the cashless welfare card was being introduced, the point was made by those in the know that really we were talking about a very small number of vulnerable people, maybe only 30 or 40, and that a lot of these restrictions are really focused on a very small number of people.

That said, the ramifications of alcoholism and drug abuse are significant because they extend to domestic violence, lack of money, lack of funding, neglect, abuse and all those other things that go with a community struggling with its identity. I understand the intention of the bill and we will be supporting it. We broadly support the intention of the bill. I have my reservations, obviously, about the overall impact of it and suggest ultimately that it is part of a bigger picture. As community leaders, we need to be far more proactive in the way we address some of these issues to find a long-term solution that is amenable and acceptable more broadly across our communities.

I listened to the member for Schubert's contribution, and he recognised the discriminatory nature of this legislation and hoped that he would be in this place when, someday, this legislation can be repealed. I have actually seen a big improvement in behaviour, amongst the communities in recent times, and more broadly over the last four decades, and the impact that it is had on the beautiful township of Ceduna. There are many, many services in Ceduna provided by non-government organisations, state government organisations and federal service providers—almost too many to count—and I suspect that there is a lot of overlap.

Effort has been made, certainly as a directive of this government—and I congratulate them on it—to have better delivery of services within Ceduna targeting the vulnerable people and to have a more concentrated effort and more agreement on the way services are provided. That work continues and will go on, I am sure.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (11:48): I thank those who have made a contribution in relation to this matter. I am genuinely pleased that everyone who has spoken on this is indicating general support, and that is heartening. I am disappointed that that general support is actually being undermined by a series of proposed amendments. I do not want to be overly critical of members who have spoken because I take them as being sincere contributions, but I must say that I have a different view.

My view is this: I am sick and tired of well-meaning people wringing their hands and saying what a terrible thing it is that this group or that group is suffering appalling circumstances and then they are not prepared to do anything about it except wring their hands or say, 'It's about time the government did something about it,' or, 'It's about time somebody else did something about it,' or, 'It's about time somebody,' other than them, 'stepped up, did something and solved the problem'. I am not in that camp. I am a kind of 'get stuff done' type of person, and if there is a problem I like to try to do something about it. I am not content to wring my hands and say, 'Isn't it a shame?' and then retire back and watch the telly.

In respect of this particular matter, what is the problem? I reject the assertion that this is a targeted attack or a singling out of Aboriginal communities. It is not, because there are dry areas all over the state. It could be schoolies down at Victor Harbor. It could be anything. I do accept that there are a large number of Aboriginal communities that are dry areas and they are dry areas because they want to be dry areas, but I reject the notion that it is a piece of legislation about Aboriginal people. It is not. It is a piece of legislation about spivs, parasites and crooks breaking the law by entering into dry areas and profiting off the vulnerable people who are there and at their mercy. Whether those people are Aboriginal, schoolies or anybody else, it is equally offensive to me.

The notion that spivs and profiteers are breaking through a regulatory framework that is designed to protect people and making a profit out of it, I find objectionable. I find it difficult to separate the spivs and parasites who are doing this from the people who are selling other substances that damage people's health, such as people who are selling illegal substances because they have equally little regard for the consequences of their actions as visited upon their victims. It is just appalling abuse for no better purpose than venal profit. I cannot think of anything more contemptible, quite frankly, so I do have a strong view about this.

Inasmuch as we are talking about Aboriginal communities, they want this. They want their communities to be protected from these spivs. They are asking us to help them. In that context, I then do not agree with the handwringers, who say, 'Yes, but what about five kilometres instead of 100 kilometres?' If you read clause 21OD, it states:

(3) A notice under subsection (1) or (2) cannot include within a designated area land that is more than 100km from the boundary of a prescribed area.

Why would we say that? I will tell you why we say that. The north part of this state, as members opposite know well, is a very, very big place, and if you say five kilometres you are saying that the police have to sit five kilometres outside of every known entry point into a prescribed area if they want to catch these crooks. I do not think that is reasonable, quite frankly. Bear in mind what the offence is. If you have a look at 21OB(1), they are talking about people who are possessing liquor for the purpose of sale, transporting liquor for the purpose of sale, and so on.

Let's not beat around the bush. We know what we are talking about here. We are talking about the absolute scum of the earth who go somewhere and buy a large amount of alcohol so they can smuggle it into a place that is not supposed to have alcohol and sell it at a large profit—that is what we are talking about. I am not convinced in any way whatsoever that having the capacity for a buffer zone of up to 100 kilometres—not a mandatory 100 kilometres—around a prescribed area is unreasonable. I think it is reasonable and that is the first point.

The member for Flinders, who I know cares about this stuff a lot and is a very well-respected local member, spoke to the parliament a little while ago about what has been going on in Ceduna. Ceduna had a terrible set of circumstances operating there for some time. I congratulate the member for Flinders, who has been wholly supportive of what the state and federal governments have tried to do in Ceduna, which was to use state agencies, commonwealth agencies, cashless welfare, and intensive services being provided into the area, restrictions on alcohol consumption.

I think the member for Flinders would agree (and I think he did say) that there has been a substantial improvement in Ceduna, which is a lovely town and should be a great place to live. What I have been told, and the member for Flinders would know this, is that there has of recent times been a bit of backsliding there, not because the people of Ceduna have given up, not because the commonwealth stopped trying, not because the state government has pulled resources out, not because the cashless card is not working anymore, but because these parasites I am talking about are breaking through the cordon and mucking everything up—that is why.

I would have thought the member for Flinders would be able to talk to some of his colleagues and say how disappointed his constituents in Ceduna are that these crooks, these parasites, are working completely against all the good work the commonwealth, the state and the member for Flinders and other people have been putting into Ceduna for years, and these spivs are trying to ruin it and profit from it. Again, I cannot think of anything more contemptible, nothing more contemptible.

With regard to the question about 'reasonable suspicion', I understand that and I understand how a lawyer would view that, but I can tell members here—I know the member for Bragg would appreciate this but others may not be quite so aware—that the significance of the words 'reasonable suspicion' ultimately play out in evidence in a court case.

Criminal trials are not about the truth, as I am often reminded by the law profession: they are about the evidence. They are about the evidence, and most of many criminal trials are occupied by trying to stop evidence being put before the jury or the judge. That is the job of the defence counsel. It is completely legitimate and I am not complaining about it but one of the things they say is, 'This evidence was obtained illegally. This evidence was obtained in a search where there was no search warrant. This evidence was obtained when you stopped the car and you did not have a valid reason for stopping the car.'

They have a subtrial, if you like, about the valid reason, and if the judge thinks there is not the valid reason, all the evidence goes. Just be clear that there is more to this particular little phrase than meets the eye. What this is about is actually saying, 'If the coppers catch these people, they are gone.' It will not help them to employ Clarence Darrow or Sir Garfield Barwick or somebody else to fight their case because they will not be able to get through it.

They will be caught red-handed and there is nothing they can do about it, and they will be pinched. That is what this is about. It is not about letting loose Mr Beria or somebody in the hinterland of South Australia. This is about enabling the evidence of these sorts of offences to be admitted in court—that is what it is about. Again, I understand the concern but I do not agree with you. I do not agree with you. Again, I will come back and be positive. I appreciate the indications of support from the opposition.

I know the member for Flinders in particular lives this thing and, of course, the member for Stuart as well, but the member for Flinders has Ceduna in his electorate. He has seen with his own eyes and has his own constituents who have seen what a terrible place that town has been to and how much improved that town is and how much hard work it has taken by so many people to get that to happen. My position is: how much should we tolerate people who want to muck that up? My answer is that I am totally intolerant of those people. I am completely, absolutely and totally intolerant of those people. I would not cut them an inch of slack.

So, to the extent that we are having a conversation about something which we all philosophically agree upon, can I just ask you all to please reflect on this and ask yourself a very simple question. Ask the member for Flinders: is Ceduna a better place now than it was five years ago? Is it a safer place? Is it a happier place? Is there less violence? What has changed there? What do these crooks I am trying to catch up with want to do with that peace and harmony that have descended upon Ceduna? We all know the answer to that: they do not care. They could not care less. All they want is filthy lucre.

I have zero sympathy for these people. I am interested in their being pinched and prosecuted and the message going out far and wide. I do not care whether it is at schoolies at Victor Harbor or on the lands or at Ceduna, I do not care where it is, but if the law says that you do not take grog in there—and I am not talking about the person who strays in there with a beer can accidentally, I am talking about the people who have cases and cases of Fruity Lexia packed into a truck—if that is what they are doing transparently for commercial gain, I think the parliament should make a very clear statement about how completely unacceptable we regard that as being.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Chapman–1]—

Page 5, line 19 [clause 4, inserted section 21OD(3)]—Delete '100km' and substitute '5km'

I can hardly believe what I have just heard from the Attorney-General. I can hardly believe it. For someone who is supposed to be Senior Counsel, Attorney-General, first law officer of the state, to give us all a lecture with his fake indignation about grog runners, when the opposition is actually supporting the bill, I think is utterly pathetic. It concerns me that he should then try to overlap that with some plea to us all to therefore reject the amendments we are proposing.

The amendments we are proposing deal with the area of operation for which there is going to be this very special provision that we are all agreeing to. What we are not agreeing to is the extent of the area. He treats us as idiots, as though we do not know that the APY lands are a long way off from the highway, a long way from Alice Springs, a long way from Port Augusta, and you have Marla sitting there. We agree that from Yalata, Oak Valley, and so on, you have quite a distance from Ceduna and other towns. We are not ignorant of the isolation of some of those remote areas.

What is offensive about his suggestion is that it is somehow or other necessary to have this special provision for up to 100 kilometres and not identify, having been able to research for the purposes of this bill, areas where there are adjacent towns and the like. I do not want a situation, and I do not think that there was the expectation, where the police would have the surveillance and enforcement of this legislation where they would be sitting outside the Ceduna hotel, the Marla tavern or anywhere else and pick up anyone they liked.

The presentation by the Attorney-General suggests that they are going to need these powers and that they be expanded not only to that extent but to very special powers of search and seizure, independent of any other operation they are doing, as though in some way we should be giving them this special provision for such a huge geographical area and for specifically these offences. I do not want a situation where a police officer is sitting outside Ceduna and has the power to pick up and stop any vehicle they feel like just because they want to check how much alcohol they have in the back of the truck or in the boot of the car or in the bus or the caravan, or, for that matter, in some trolley they are pulling behind a cycle.

I make this point: we have search and seizure laws in relation to police activity as a balance between the need for us to instruct and employ and provide for law enforcers and the rightful opportunity for ordinary people to go about their business—and he of all people, as the first law officer of the state, newly appointed senior counsel, ought to have some clue of the purpose of that. I find it offensive and rude that he should come in and try to give us a lecture in respect of that as though in some way we are impeding the actual motive and opportunity to deal with those who are grog running. We agree with it.

I could ask the question: why the hell have you taken 15 years to get on and do something about this? It is as though we are all ignorant of the fact that they have been pursuing their other interests and not actually dealing with this issue. It is not unreasonable that, as with other offences, we still require that there be some reasonable cause to stop, arrest, obviously take possession, and, if necessary, search for the purposes of dealing with these reprehensible people, as has been described by the Attorney. That is all we are asking for and that there be some limitation on that and in respect of it being the same powers as in relation to other offences, but we are giving special provision, obviously, within that narrow mandate.

I know in the briefings we have had on this bill and others that the police have given a long list to the government. In the last two weeks of the government—the dying days of this government, hopefully—I do not want to be trying to push through some sort of wish list. Of course the police want these things; they want lots of things, and in some cases it is quite reasonable that they get them, but in others it is completely unreasonable.

I know that the Mayor of Ceduna has said to the government, 'Good on you for getting on with this legislation.' We agree in that sense, but what we say is: how is Allan Suter going to explain this? He is the mayor out there at Ceduna. He is a decent bloke who works hard for his community and who has been prepared to take up lots of battles with the government—not that they have listened very often, but nevertheless he is a good person representing his community. He has worked hard to achieve good outcomes for the Ceduna district. Great, but how is he going to deal with it if local people are unreasonably pulled over and have their vehicle searched when they are on their way to holiday in Western Australia? For goodness sake! We just want some reasonable management of the enforcement of this new legislation.

If there is a situation that prevails—and I have asked this question, and of course you can imagine what the answer was—how many times have you failed to successfully prosecute somebody in relation to pulling over a vehicle for the purpose of seizure? There are lots of actual opportunities to pull over a vehicle and search it when there is reasonable cause, especially in relation to drugs, but have there been any occasions when you had failed to successfully prosecute somebody because the evidence has been thrown out? Guess what? I have not had an answer.

The Attorney comes in here waving around his great knowledge about this area as though this is some major problem that we need to remedy in relation to this legislation for the police. Where is the evidence of that? Where is the truth of that, if you like? He wants to come in here and give us all lectures about what these processes are for. These processes are there for good reason, and we need to have some good, cogent reason if we are going to change those rules just to be able to support this effort in relation to the legislation. I would ask the Attorney to reconsider his position on this and to think carefully between the houses because, when he votes down this amendment, he can rest assured that it will be coming back in another place.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am a bit exhausted from my second reading contribution, so can I just repeat that in parenthesis and not repeat it, if you know what I mean. I think I will leave it at that.

Amendment negatived.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Chapman–1]—

Page 5, line 38 to page 7, line 23 [clause 4, inserted section 21OE]—Delete inserted section 21OE

Amendment No 3 [Chapman–1]—

Page 7, lines 25 to 35 [clause 4, inserted section 21OF(1) to (3)]—Delete subsections (1) to (3)

Amendment No 4 [Chapman–1]—

Page 8, lines 6 to 9 [clause 4, inserted section 21OF(6)]—Delete subsection (6)

Amendment No 5 [Chapman–1]—

Page 8, lines 13 and 14 [clause 4, inserted section 21OF(7), definition of seized property]—Delete the definition of seized property

These amendments relate to section 21OE and various lines of 21OF, and deal with the question of reasonable cause to search, and the removal of the definition 'seized property' for the purposes of what we are requiring. In short, that is to ensure that the police have the same obligation in relation to search and seizure as they do otherwise under the Summary Offences Act for all the reasons I have outlined.

Amendments negatived; clause passed.

Schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (12:11): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.