Bills

Criminal Law Consolidation (Criminal Organisations - Prescribed Places) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 13 September 2023.)

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS (Cheltenham—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services) (12:01): I thank members for their contributions during the second reading—

The SPEAKER: If the minister speaks, he will close debate.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: I seek to close debate, sir. As I was so eloquently saying, I thank members for their contributions, particularly the lead speaker, the member for Heysen, for his considered contribution on this very important bill. I note what has been the passage of this through the other place with the support of the opposition and also the foreshadowing by the member for Heysen and other opposition speakers indicating the support of the opposition in respect of the bill before the house at this time as well. I believe it is the will of the house to enter the committee stage. I am happy to provide any further contributions at the third reading should they be needed.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr TEAGUE: I take this opportunity to address some remarks briefly to the reasons of Justice Steward. There has been one passage in particular of those reasons that has been referred by the Attorney, by the minister in this place and by me because it was in relation to the question of whether or not procedural fairness was implied in the legislation. The passage is not in front of me just now, but the thrust of it was that, with legislation of this kind, it ought to be rather obvious that the intent of the parliament is not to go ahead and give a warning to the criminal organisation about its intent to declare the prescribed place.

Those reasons of Justice Steward are all there, and I commend them to the house. Justice Steward is otherwise not departing from the plurality in allowing the appeal, but for the substantive reasons all of the court was agreed that it was not strictly necessary to deal with this question of procedural fairness, but it is that that has excited the engagement of the Law Society and, so far as the legislation is concerned, it is a good thing to dwell on it.

I might have neglected to say in my remarks at the second reading stage that of course we are dealing here with circumstances where there is, first, the declaration of the criminal organisation and then, secondly, the question of the declaring of a prescribed place. As Justice Steward points out, the process of declaring the criminal organisation in the first place is a process that is the subject of procedural fairness. You have a process in place for giving an indication of that intent and an opportunity to address that matter.

It is in those particular circumstances that Justice Steward is saying that you have that, that is really a primary step in terms of the affording of procedural fairness, and then from there it ought to be more or less a commonsense step that, if you are going to apply disruptive legislation intended to render it more difficult for the criminal organisation to conduct activities from premises that they otherwise owner occupy, then you are going to be going ahead and doing that without wanting to take the sorts of steps that are involved in declaring them as criminal organisations in the first place.

The reasons of Justice Steward set all that out, so it was helpful in the context of where we are—inserting provisions that abrogate procedural fairness expressly at this stage. It is well to bear in mind that there is a process that leads up to this, and it has been conducted therefore in that particular context, and I thought it important to have that squarely on the record in case it was not sufficiently brought to the attention of the parliament in the course of the second reading debate.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr TEAGUE: I was a bit vague earlier. I make particular reference to paragraph 83 of Justice Steward's reasons, where he sets out what I have just endeavoured to describe. I have it in front of me now. He says:

The procedure for the making of regulations declaring property to be a prescribed place may be contrasted with the legislative regime for declaring an organisation to be a 'declared organisation' for the purposes of the [2008 act]. That Act sets out a complex procedure whereby an application can be made by the Commissioner of Police…for a [court] order that a particular organisation be declared to be a 'declared organisation'. The application must, amongst other things, set out the grounds on which the declaration is sought and the information supporting those grounds, and be supported by at least one affidavit from a police officer.

He then goes on to say:

The absence of anything like this complex procedure, involving as it does a clear statutory mechanism for the giving of procedural fairness, is a further indication of Parliament's intention of what was required when making regulations of the kind the subject of this appeal.

It is that comparison that Justice Steward is making that I was endeavouring to refer to just now.

Clause passed.

Schedule 1.

Mr TEAGUE: I have just one question. I would be interested to understand the process that has been followed, particularly in relation to subclause (2), which I read as first repealing the declaration of certain places by deleting certain regulations and then declaring certain places to be prescribed places for the purposes of the definition by making new regulations 3 to 9.

It is my understanding that has an effect of refreshing the register. I would be interested in how that works mechanically and what we now see in terms of the list of prescribed places, the relevant ones now being incorporated and a number now coming off as well.

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: As the member for Heysen has already put, the current schedule will cease and the new schedule will come into effect. Those new matters, or the new properties and CT titles, and also those that have fallen off, are based upon that operational and intelligence advice received from various agencies. Obviously, without going into the detail on that, those that are before us and those that will be contained within the schedule are those which, as per advice provided to government, still warrant a prescribed place being declared. Those that are not, for various reasons, operational and intelligence based, are no longer required. At the commencement, it will be out with the old and in with the new.

Mr TEAGUE: I am not here inquiring as to the reasons for the changes, but, in terms of seeing that first expressed and for the benefit of the reference to this process, we see in part 2 the substitution of places. It declares a number places as prescribed places, and we will come to that in a minute, but there are a number that will no longer be prescribed places. I might be just slow, but it is not apparent on the face of this bill what those are, but it will be apparent on the face of the regulation as it is amended; is that right? If so, if it is able to be identified what they are, can the minister identify what they are?

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS: In direct response to the member's question, I can advise, as I previously did, that the substitution of regulations will take effect upon the commencement of the legislation; that is, the old regulations, as they currently stand, will cease, and the new regulations include, as already identified by the member, the smaller number of titles. I do not at this moment have, to provide to you, the titles that are not to be included in the new schedule. However, for the ease of the member, the side-by-side comparison is the correct way to do it. For those that are not on the new and were on the old we have not been advised to proceed with, for the reasons I provided earlier.

Schedule passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.K. SZAKACS (Cheltenham—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services) (12:18): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

Mr ODENWALDER: Sir, I reluctantly draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed: