Bills

Criminal Assets Confiscation (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Ms THOMPSON (Davenport) (15:43): The Criminal Assets Confiscation Act has long played a critical role in our legal framework by allowing the state to confiscate the property of prescribed drug offenders. The bill will strengthen our ability to seize the proceeds of drug crimes, enhance law enforcement capabilities and ensure that the Justice Rehabilitation Fund supports crime prevention, rehabilitation and victim support initiatives.

Several amendments stemming from a review of the act were passed last year. These included expanding the definition of government custody to encompass home detention, clarifying property control under a restraining order, and ensuring forfeited property can be lawfully destroyed when appropriate. However, as this government has done from the outset, we have continued our work to ensure that this important legal mechanism is as effective and efficient as it possibly can be.

The amendments contained in the bill reflect those priorities, with some of them having been suggested by South Australia Police, who, of course, work closely with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in enforcing the act.

One of the significant challenges that law enforcement faces is the instantaneous nature of modern banking transactions. Since the act's introduction in the mid-2000s, Australia's financial landscape has transformed considerably. Today money can be transferred instantly, both domestically and internationally, allowing criminals to conceal their assets at the press of a button.

Just last year South Australia Police cracked down on a sophisticated money-laundering operation linked to the Comanchero bikie gang. A high-ranking enforcer was extradited from New South Wales after police uncovered an alleged $1 million laundering scheme, which aimed to funnel criminal proceeds through legitimate businesses and offshore accounts.

Under the strengthened provisions of this bill, freezing orders on bank accounts could be applied more swiftly, preventing the rapid movement of illicit funds across borders before they disappear beyond the law enforcement's reach. Additionally, the bill reduces the timeframes in which banks must respond to police notices regarding assets held for prescribed drug offenders. This measure ensures that law enforcement can swiftly secure proceeds of crime before they are hidden.

In one of South Australia's largest methamphetamine seizures, police raided a home in the western suburbs and found over seven kilograms of methamphetamine, firearms and large amounts of cash. This is exactly the type of case where expanded confiscation powers are critical. The amendments in this bill ensure that criminals profiting from the distribution of these dangerous substances cannot retain their ill-gotten gains with assets seized and reinvested into the Justice Rehabilitation Fund to combat the very harms that these crimes have caused.

The bill also tightens loopholes around third-party ownership claims. Criminals frequently attempt to hide their assets by registering them under different names. New provisions grant law enforcement stronger powers to demand explanations regarding property holdings, ensuring offenders cannot shield their wealth from justice.

Whether it's a luxury car or an investment property or hidden bank accounts, these reforms will guarantee that assets truly controlled by criminals are not excluded from confiscation. Millions of dollars seized from drug traffickers and organised crime networks are already funding crime prevention initiatives right across South Australia. For example, proceeds from confiscated assets have been directed into youth intervention programs designed to steer at-risk young people away from criminal pathways. This bill strengthens that approach, ensuring that proceeds of crime continue to be repurposed for rehabilitation, victim support and crime reduction.

To improve the efficiency of the confiscation scheme, this bill allows for the delegation of certain powers from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Chief Recovery Officer of the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit. This will ensure that confiscation matters are handled more efficiently and that law enforcement agencies have the resources that they need to target organised crime.

Additionally, costs associated with administering the act will be deducted from forfeited assets before remaining funds are placed into the Justice Rehabilitation Fund. This approach aligns with the Victims of Crime Fund where seized assets from non drug-related offenders first cover administrative costs before being allocated to victim support services.

Furthermore, the timeframe for police to return property is not subject to a forfeiture order and will be extended from 25 days to 60 days. This ensures that law enforcement agencies have sufficient time to complete investigations before returning assets initially seized; a sensible adjustment that supports our hardworking South Australia Police team. Each of these changes ensures that the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act remains an effective tool in combating commercial drug crime.

By confiscating criminal proceeds and redirecting them into the Justice Rehabilitation Fund, we strike at the heart of organised drug crime—and that is their profits. The Justice Rehabilitation Fund plays a vital role in addressing the harm caused by these crimes, funding programs that benefit offenders, victims and community safety initiatives. This bill modernises our asset confiscation framework to match today's financial realities, strengthen law enforcement powers to prevent criminals' profits from being laundered and protects innocent third parties while ensuring offenders face real consequences. Importantly, it reinforces the original intent of the scheme, to hit commercial drug offenders where it hurts them most—their hip pocket—while using their ill-gotten gains to support crime prevention and rehabilitation initiatives. For these reasons I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. Z.L. BETTISON (Ramsay—Minister for Tourism, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (15:49): I rise to speak on the Criminal Assets Confiscation (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill and offer my support. This bill implements the remaining recommendations of the statutory review into the prescribed drug offender provisions of the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2005 that were not included in the Criminal Assets Confiscation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2024 passed last year. These amendments will help to facilitate a more effective and efficient act, and ensure that the drug traffickers lose their profits, and that funds seized will be used to offset some of the damage drug traffickers have on our community.

Each and every one of us have experiences as members of parliament and have seen, I guess, the stories about drug-related crime. We know that it fuels violence and addiction, and it impacts homelessness and mental health issues. Drugs are an absolute scourge in our society, placing enormous pressure on the healthcare system and the criminal justice system, not to mention the personal impact on individuals. Drug trafficking no doubt impacts those people who become addicted to illicit substances and their families, who are often left desperately trying to get their loved ones help.

Further revenue collected as a result of this amendment will go towards initiatives to ensure that people impacted by addiction will receive the help that they need. The fund is currently used to contribute towards a number of programs to support preventive crime measures and rehabilitation services. It will also be used to bolster efforts to protect victims of crime. Some specific examples of the types of programs the funds support include drug and alcohol support services offered to the Aboriginal Drug and Alcohol Council, and OARS Community Transitions. It supports a review of the Courts Administration Authority Abuse Prevention Program which aims to address domestic and family violence.

It will be supporting the Department for Correctional Services Victim Services Unit which seeks to add additional checks and balances in the criminal justice system to protect victims of crime. It will work with Junction SA to deliver domestic and family violence prevention activities on Kangaroo Island. It will also support a two-year trial at the Youth Aboriginal Community Court in Adelaide which enables Aboriginal children and young people to participate in a culturally responsive program.

But the project that I wish to speak about—wherein the amendments in this bill will help to fund a program—is specifically close to my heart as someone connected to the community and as my role as Minister for Multicultural Affairs, and forms part of this government's plan to address youth crime particularly within our African community. The African community's response is a 12-month pilot program for a new therapeutic pathway aimed at supporting individuals aged 10 to 18 from the African community with a pattern of high-risk offending.

The program is currently providing at-risk participants with a dynamic, responsive and culturally appropriate therapeutic intervention. It also collaborates with the community to identify at-risk individuals, assess their intervention needs and co-design a tailored response. I am pleased to report to the house that there have been some successes in this pilot to date, including that all eight individuals invited to participate in the program have voluntarily agreed to join.

The participants have consistently attended sessions, openly sharing personal experiences including offending-related behaviours. More importantly, families have expressed hope and have actively encouraged their children's engagement. Strong partnerships have been established with SAPOL, Community Youth Justice and the education sector. I particularly want to call out Christies Beach school that has been actively involved.

Cultural training and support has also been delivered to multiple organisations through this project. The African community's Response Steering Committee includes representatives from SAPOL, the legal system, the Department for Correctional Services, the Department of the Premier and Cabinet, the African Communities Council of South Australia, and key community service providers. This initiative demonstrates a collaborative, culturally informed approach to addressing high-risk offending and strengthening community connections.

Going further from this program, of course, is how we prevent our young African youth being pulled into offending, and I am very pleased to talk today about the empowering African youth program. This is something that was announced in our budget of $2.5 million over four years to strengthen those connections. At the end of the day, we want to build a sense of belonging to our young people across our great state. Most importantly, we must identify those groups of people who are showing us vulnerabilities; they are asking us for help. I recognise the work of the African Communities Council of South Australia who, supported by funding by the government of South Australia, have written a report about this and that funding announced in the budget has flowed on.

We are looking at strengthening connections between young African South Australians and their education, to improve cultural education support and a community sport program. Most importantly, we want to strengthen that support for African young people and their families, and strengthen those connections between families and education providers. Sometimes there is a feeling that parents of our African community do not feel they can ask and be as involved in our education as perhaps we see in the wider community. How will we do this? How will we roll out this African empowerment program?

We will do this through cultural education support. In year one, we have allocated funding to facilitate the delivery of several priority early intervention measures. We have transferred funding to the Department for Education to cover salary costs for an additional community liaison officer in target schools. This is to keep African students engaged in their studies and inspired to achieve academic goals.

Something particularly new is engagement and mentoring/coaching and counselling by a non-government service provider based in northern Adelaide to deliver the SACE-accredited Village Program. This started in targeted schools in term 1 of this year. The Village Program provides structured early learning intervention cultural support programs for African students and their community. The early intervention measures include one-on-one mentoring and cultural group activities aimed at supporting students to navigate issues relating to cultural identity, fostering emotional resilience and strengthening social skills.

As part of the program, the Eastside Rams Basketball Club will be engaged to deliver an after-school basketball program specifically designed for young people who are at risk of disengaging from school. Can I recognise the work of the Eastside Rams Basketball Club. This has been an initiative by some of our young African leaders. They are currently working in a school in the north-eastern suburbs, where they designed, almost like a homework club, an after-school-hours program, making sure people are involved and connected. They came and met with me sometime ago to talk about what would encourage them to start this program. They have seen results from having those individual mentorings, that connection—understanding what might be happening at home—and then being able to support them to stay at school.

We further engaged Football SA to deliver the African youth football program in targeted schools in partnership with the Department for Education. I was very much influenced by the success of the Aboriginal Power Cup that the Port Adelaide Football Club established probably almost a decade ago now, and the involvement of students in that only if they attend school. It is very much part of a long-term program. At its heart, of course, is coming together and learning a skill and playing a sport that they will love. But the reality is that it is about commitment and, at the centre of it, education being the greatest success that someone can achieve—making sure that we tie that in with the enjoyment of coming together to play in a competition.

I look forward to launching this program in the coming months and recognise Football South Australia's role in that. It is entirely focused around engagement and retention of students in education. Part of the focus of that cup will be embedded in the school curriculum and student connection with the education system. More importantly, it is about integration into lifelong learning and to acknowledge that when those kids are more vulnerable at particular ages, we see them getting distracted and we see an increase in absenteeism. This will be one of those programs that will continue to refocus their support.

The other thing we are doing with the empowering Africans program is delivering one-off grants for community organisations to better support families. We already have quite a few associations in the western and northern suburbs that are doing this work. We know that there is generational conflict, we know that people are asking questions about how you parent in Australia and how that is different from their own experiences. Particularly what we see in these issues is generational trauma, where people were dislocated from their traditional way of life, often spending time in camps for decades.

Even while they might have been able to have some connection to education, living and being raised in fear of violence and being concerned about your own survival has caused dislocation and displacement that we continue to see here in Australia. We recognise that and we recognise the great work that some of these associations are doing. I recognise the Amazing Northern Multicultural Services, part of the Burundian community in Davoren Park. They are very famous for their maze garden which is a big community garden. They were once the stars of Gardening Australia, when Sophie Thompson came and did a story about them.

That community garden became a source of connectivity and along that journey they started programs such as parenting programs and homework clubs, and we are going to support them to continue to work with those. The African Muslim association, also out in the northern region in Smithfield, are doing homework clubs and they will be getting some support as well. Additionally, we recognise the continued work of the African Communities Council of South Australia, to provide some certainty in order to have their leadership and their collaboration. There are 53 African countries. It is a continent, not a country. We have about 46 different nationalities from the African continent who have made South Australia their home.

We have given them four years of certainty of funding to continue the work that they have done and to recognise their leadership in calling out and collaborating with government to say, 'We need help. We are seeing increasing incarceration rates of our children.' Some of them are not finishing school even though they are getting the opportunity for education that often their parents did not have. I want to recognise the leadership there, I recognise the hard work that they have done and recognise that we as a government have responded, announced it in the budget last year, and this is how that program runs out.

When we look at the amendment bill before us, we want to point out when people are doing wrong in our society. We see that they make excessive profits, and the member for Davenport spoke about how those assets are seized and how they will be used. For me this is a really important step forward to tie those two things together, to confiscate those assets, and then to use them in programs that will make a difference. When people in our society recognise their vulnerabilities and when they show that they are having increasing rates of incarceration we need to act, and we have. There is still a lot of work to be done but I speak today to support this amendment bill, and I thank the Attorney-General for his work in bringing it to the house.

Mr DIGHTON (Black) (16:03): I rise to support the Criminal Assets Confiscation (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill 2025. The Criminal Assets Confiscation Act allows the state to confiscate the property of prescribed drug offenders and reinvest it into the Justice Rehabilitation Fund. A prescribed drug offender is a person who has been convicted of a serious drug offence, such as trafficking or manufacturing a commercial quantity of a controlled drug, where they have at least two other previous convictions for prescribed drug offences in the previous 10 years.

A number of the recommendations falling out of the review of the operation of the act were passed in a bill before this place last year, including amendments to:

provide that home detention is within the definition of 'government custody';

clarify that property can be under the effective control of a PDO even if it is subject to a restraining order; and

clarify that forfeited property can be destroyed.

The bill contains a number of procedural amendments, including the scope of freezing orders placed on banking accounts that belong to offenders, as well as a reduction of timeframes in which the banks have to respond to notices from police with information as to the assets it holds in relation to PDOs. This comes in response to the instant nature of banking that has occurred since the beginning of the act in the mid 2000s, where money can be transferred instantaneously within and outside of Australia, and PDOs will do so to try to conceal their true assets.

Similarly, a new power to demand answers from offenders as to legitimate third-party interests in any confiscated assets forms part of this bill, to ensure that the property of innocent parties is protected whilst not sending law enforcement on a wild goose chase following up warrantless claims.

The bill also clarifies that simultaneous convictions will be taken into account for the purposes of the definition of a prescribed drug offender, which echoes the reasoning of the Supreme Court of South Australia in the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Donnelly.

Several noncompliance penalties under the act are increased in the bill in recognition that often it is high-value assets being dealt with and penalties must reflect a punitive outcome. Following feedback from SAPOL, it extends the time for police to return property that is initially seized but does not become the subject of a forfeiture order and can be returned to the owner from 25 to 60 days.

Amendments will increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the scheme, including the delegation of certain powers from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Chief Recovery Officer of the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit and an amendment that will allow the costs of administering the act to be taken from forfeited assets prior to the remainder being placed into the Justice Rehabilitation Fund. The amendments ensure that it is the assets of criminals that fund the operation of the CAC Act, and not taxpayers.

The Justice Rehabilitation Fund receives the prescribed drug offender confiscation proceeds. The fund is a dedicated fund for the provision of programs and facilities for the benefit of offenders, victims and other persons that will further crime prevention and rehabilitation strategies. It includes prevention programs and victim programs, such as one run by the Carly Ryan Foundation. In a former life as a teacher and wellbeing leader in a school community, I engaged the Carly Ryan Foundation and many other providers to support students to understand risk-taking behaviour, including drug use.

I think it is important that I remind the house of why it is important we tackle drug use within our community. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, recent studies reveal the impact of drugs on society in the following ways. In regard to health impacts, illicit drug use contributed to 2.9 per cent of the total burden of disease, including drug use disorders, poisoning, hepatitis C, acute hepatitis B and HIV/AIDS. Drug overdose is a major cause of preventable death and is the leading cause of death among young people worldwide who inject drugs. Between 2019 and 2023 there was an increase in the proportion of people who had used an illicit drug in the past 12 months and then went on to experience high or very high levels of psychological distress.

The illicit drugs market is also associated with a range of criminal activities, including property crime, fraud and violence. Engagement in criminal activity is accompanied by a number of physical dangers, and therefore people who engage in or use drugs are more likely to face those physical dangers.

A recent Australian study found that domestic and family violence incidents were significantly more likely than other violent incidents to involve drugs. Some of the economic costs include opioid use, including the use of illegal opioids and the use of pharmaceutical opioids not as prescribed, which was estimated to cost $15.76 billion in 2015-16. Premature mortality, criminal justice and other health care were the leading sources of the costs. Other economic costs related to the loss of quality of life for co-residents of drug users, for example parents and children, due to the substance use of others, which was $11.98 billion, and reduced quality of life for the drug consumer, which was $14.93 billion.

The social cost of cannabis use was estimated to be $4.5 billion in 2015-16. More than half, or $2.4 billion, of this cost was related to the criminal justice system, including imprisonment, administering community supervision orders, and the impact on victims of crime. The estimated social costs attributed to methamphetamine use in 2013-14 was about $5 billion. This included costs associated with prevention, harm reduction and treatment; health care; premature mortality; crime; child maltreatment and protection; and workplace accidents and productivity. These are all various factors where methamphetamine use impacted.

In 2021, the cost of addiction in Australia was estimated to be $80.3 billion. This includes costs associated with alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, as well as gambling addiction. Tobacco-related harm was the largest contributor to costs ($35.8 billion), followed by alcohol-related harm ($22.6 billion) and harm related to other drugs ($12.9 billion). The major contributor of costs was attributed to workplace and household productivity losses (48 per cent), followed by costs associated with excessive harmful consumption of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs and engaging in gambling.

Another concern is the social impact of the link between drugs and criminal gangs, including organised criminal gangs in Australia that exploit individuals addicted to illicit drugs and, it has been shown in recent cases, force them into taking part in criminal activities, leveraging the drug user's dependency and vulnerability. There have been several cases recently where users and addicts were forced into criminal behaviour such as selling or supplying drugs due to their drug dependence and addiction.

Beyond the figures and percentages, we know the significant impact drugs have on families within our community. We need to use comprehensive strategies, including this legislative change, to break the cycle of exploitation and addiction. This bill will help to fight drug use by keeping the act effective and efficient. It supports the aim of the scheme to both hit commercial drug offenders where it hurts most and to use these seized funds to address the health, economic and social impacts of drug use and offending in our community. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms STINSON (Badcoe) (16:13): The act that this bill is seeking to amend, the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act, is an act about drug dealers. It is an act about offenders who gain their assets through criminal activity and then our courts have found, to the required level of proof, that they have committed these offences.

What this act further seeks to do is to provide some balance, I suppose, in making sure that the assets of those people who have profited from criminal activity, profited from putting the health of people at risk, and in some cases even been the catalyst for some people dying cannot continue to be used for the pleasure and enjoyment of these convicted offenders but are put back into programs that seek to try to make some repairs to the damage that these people have wrought on our society, as difficult and almost impossible as that can be.

I actually think this act is a fantastic piece of legislation. It is almost a model piece of legislation in terms of trying to right a wrong, trying to make sure that a person who has gained from their outrageous criminal behaviour cannot continue to profit or seek enjoyment from the proceeds of their crimes, and then redirecting that into a public good. There have, however, from the early days been difficulties with using this act to its full potential and to the fullest extent that this house and our community might expect.

I certainly have been witness as a court reporter—it would be more than a decade ago now—to the DPP seeking to use this act to confiscate assets and then to either sell them or retain them and try to turn them into something that can be put into the Justice Rehabilitation Fund and used much more productively. Because, guess what? Drug dealers actually do not want to give up their assets. They do not want to give up their money.

They fight tooth and nail with whatever resources they have—lawyers or otherwise—to try to hide their assets, to try to obfuscate, to try to make sure that the state and the public, that is, do not get hold of their assets, cannot try to reverse the damage that those drug dealers and other criminals have wrought. They are pretty clever at doing it and, of course, by virtue of the fact that they have made money—sometimes absolutely obscene amounts of money—from their drug dealing and other wrongdoing, they are in a position to be able to hire lawyers and to hire other professional assistance, including accountants, to hide their assets, whether they are cash or things like boats and fancy cars, and try to make sure that the state cannot get hold of those.

There are certainly methods that they employ, including putting assets into other people's names, putting them into the names of supposed dependants and arguing that those third parties would be deprived in some way if such assets were taken from them. I have seen these arguments play out in court. If it is not bad enough and shameful enough that these people are essentially pushing poison to young people, and also older people, in our community and wreaking havoc on the lives of South Australians, and indeed Australians more broadly, it is absolutely galling to think that even after a conviction for these offences they then dig their heels in and try to make sure that the state cannot recoup even just a small part of the profit they have made, to try to reverse the horrific damage that these people have perpetrated upon their victims.

And their victims are many. Their victims are not just the people that they push drugs to. They are not just the people who have become entwined in this absolutely appalling, violent industry, but their victims are also the family members, the children of people who find themselves addicted to drugs. This is intergenerational harm that is caused through what are commercial operations of people who have absolutely no moral fibre whatsoever and decide that this is the life they want, a life of crime and a life of pushing poison on our streets to our most vulnerable people.

I think it is an admirable thing that the state does in trying to recoup the wealth, the assets, the cash and the means that these criminals accrue, sometimes over lengthy periods of time, and to try to better utilise that. However, the cost that is wrought upon our community does not come close to the amount of funds that are able to be recouped, even in a best-case scenario, from these criminals. Nevertheless, even though it may not be perfect and always able to be realised, it is absolutely worth pursuing these people for every possible dollar. It is important, firstly, that it is taken from them so they cannot continue to profit and, secondly, that that funding, that money and those assets can be turned into some semblance of good in our community.

As you can probably tell, I say go hard against these people. I find absolutely appalling the amount of wealth in terms of homes, properties, boats, cars, holidays and designer items that some of these criminals are in a position to afford and flaunt their money on, all the while knowing that that money and that lifestyle that is being afforded to them is on the back of vulnerable people and the illicit drug trade.

The other aspect of this bill is, of course, the Justice Rehabilitation Fund. I know my colleagues have spoken about some of the work of that fund, but it is dedicated for the provision of different programs and facilities for the benefit of, strangely enough, offenders and those who find themselves in prison—so prison programs—but also victims of crime. As I said before, the victims are many and varied. There is a ripple effect that goes through the community and victimisation that happens right across our society because of illicit drug use, and also for other people who may find themselves affected by this crime. These programs and facilities are aimed at crime prevention and also rehabilitation strategies.

I do not know that the fund, if it were a person, could have a bigger heart than taking this funding and actually redirecting it into services for offenders and prisoners, ensuring that they come out of the system as better people with better skills and better resources to be able to contribute as members of society, turn their lives around and actually provide something good in this world. Obviously, those programs and facilities are also aimed at victims, the innocent people who maybe have ended up entwined in this and have ended up as the unsuspecting victims of the illicit drug trade.

This bill obviously looks to tighten up a number of aspects of this act. As I mentioned earlier, early on there were some difficulties, which I was aware of as I was reporting on them, in achieving the outcomes that the community might have expected from the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act. There have, from time to time, been improvements put in place to try to basically empower the DPP in particular to be able to, firstly, get an evidence base against these people—though you would think that a conviction might be enough but, sadly, in some cases more is needed—to be able to make sure that convicted criminals qualify for this action being taken against them under the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act, and, further, that all their assets can actually be accounted for and make up part of the claim that the DPP takes to the court. That is, we are including everything to the extent humanly possible to make sure that the state is getting hold of the maximum amount of assets from these criminals and that that money is then put to greater purpose in the fund.

It can be incredibly difficult—and some of the amendments go to this—to establish what a criminal's assets are and then to establish whether they, for example, might be jointly owned and whether a third party might be adversely affected by the confiscation of that asset.

One of the most typical examples is obviously where there is a home and there may be a partner or children living in that home. Obviously, no-one wants to see children, or anyone else who is innocent in these matters, displaced or suffer hardship because of the criminal activity of someone in their lives. That is not what the act is intending to do whatsoever, but it can be incredibly difficult to discern what exactly has gone on with some very complex and clever arrangements made by criminals to try to conceal their assets or to wrap up third parties into their assets as some sort of form of protection against the DPP and the state being able to include their assets in a criminal assets confiscation bid.

Some of these amendments that are before us, which of course I fully support, are aimed at giving new powers, for example, to demand answers from offenders as to legitimate third-party interests in any confiscated assets, to ensure that the DPP is in fact targeting the assets that rightly should be confiscated and with the state, but avoiding those where there is a need for them to remain benefiting, if you like, those third parties.

I note in the bill that there are some penalties for failing to answer such questions and the possibility of jail or big fines for avoiding that, but also not just avoiding or refusing to answer but for providing knowingly false information and sending our law enforcement agencies on a wild-goose chase to try to locate the owners of assets, or even assets themselves, that may not exist or may just be sending our law enforcement agencies in a completely different direction and wasting their time and money and effort.

These people are not good people—they are some of the worst people—so we should not be surprised that they are trying to avoid the state's right under this act to take their assets, and we should not be surprised that they go to great lengths to hide those assets and to flat-out lie or deceive or manipulate our law enforcement officials to whatever end those criminals have.

So those amendments that are contained here to make sure that, as it is elegantly put, prescribed drug offenders—I can think of a few other less elegant terminologies, but in the act, PDOs or prescribed drug offenders—are compelled to cooperate with authorities and for authorities to be able to demand answers from them to me seems an infinitely sensible aspect to put in this amendment bill to ensure we can continue to tighten up and improve the effectiveness of this act, which, as I said, I think has very admirable ambitions.

The amendments also seek to increase the effectiveness and the efficiency of the scheme to include the delegation of certain powers from the DPP to the Chief Recovery Officer of the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit, and an amendment that will allow the costs of administering the act to be taken from forfeited assets prior to the remainder being placed into the Justice Rehabilitation Fund.

I also think that is an excellent measure because why should taxpayers be footing the bill for this mechanism to exist when we could be taking the money from criminals and using that money that is collected from criminals to administer the scheme? Certainly, they are the ones who are creating all of this work, they are the ones who are committing criminal offences—chiefly, as we are talking about here, drug offences, drug dealing—they are the ones who are seeking to profit from it, so it seems only reasonable that, at the point where they are convicted drug offenders, where the state does seek to utilise its rights under the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act, that money should be taken from that money or assets that are collected to administer the fund, rather than the burden resting with taxpayers who are already copping the brunt of the bill that these criminals create for our society.

There are also several noncompliance penalties under the act that are increased in the bill, which I mentioned briefly earlier, and that is in recognition that often these are high-value assets that are being dealt with and that the penalties must reflect a punitive outcome. Although the penalties have been greatly increased, generally from around $20,000 to around $100,000, looking at some of the wealth that some of these disgusting criminals manage to accrue, I think it is still pretty generous of the state. I think we could probably go even higher, but I will leave it to more informed minds who have put together these amendments and have found that that is the sweet spot that we want to hit.

Some of these assets that are being sought to be confiscated by the DPP are indeed very high. These are very high-wealth individuals with very expensive assets—as I mentioned before, property, homes, expensive cars and other assets—and we want to make sure that it is just not in their interests at all to be playing games with our officials who seek to use these powers. We want to make sure that they are thinking twice before thinking it is a good idea to just run the risk of trying it on with law enforcement authorities; instead, providing them some additional compulsion to cooperate, to tell the truth, and basically to facilitate these assets being taken off them, as they should.

We do not want them looking at the penalty thinking, 'That's pretty modest. I think it's probably worth running the gauntlet and seeing if I can outsmart these investigators,' because the asset that they hold is worth so much more than the penalty they possibly face. The amendment contained within this bill to increase that monetary penalty for noncompliance is excellent, as it provides an additional level of deterrence and an additional level of encouragement to offenders to cooperate so far as this act is being utilised.

In the creation of this bill there was some feedback from SAPOL that they would like to see the period of time that they can retain property increased from 25 days to 60 days. That one probably goes without much need for comment in that police are pretty busy people. We want them prioritising the things that they need to be prioritising, and if they need a bit more time to hang on to assets which they have deemed are highly likely to be the subject of criminal asset confiscation action then I think we should give them the right to do that.

Obviously, if there are pieces of property that may be in dispute, there are mechanisms for that to be assessed. Certainly after 60 days there is a mechanism for an additional, I think, 28 days to be sought, but the requirement is to go to the court to get that extension. That provides an important check so that it is not a case of cops being lazy about getting to these matters. If assets are truly not or not likely to be the subject of or captured by this act, then the parties have an opportunity to make that representation and to get those assets back rather than them being held longer than is necessary. But, generally, I think that that move from 25 days to 60 days will make the life of police officers who are dealing with these matters much easier. I fully support this act, I fully support this bill and these amendments, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak with the house about it.

Mr FULBROOK (Playford) (16:33): Just like the member for Badcoe and her brilliant speech, I am more than happy to rise and speak in support of this bill. I also note that the opposition has made a contribution, albeit brief, in support of this bill and I think it is fantastic when both sides of the chamber stand together, particularly in pursuit of something as concerning and as alarming as the matter of criminal assets.

As I understand it, the Criminal Assets Confiscation (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill seeks to enhance a lot of provisions established within the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2005 that were not included within the Criminal Assets Confiscation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill—a bit of a tongue twister but it all makes sense. This is a bill that I believe has many moving parts, with the underlying goal of building on the Malinauskas government's previous efforts to ensure that criminals do not profit from their offending.

This is a commendable position, and I am grateful to the likes of SAPOL and other agencies that have been instrumental in helping to bring this piece of legislation before us. By way of background, the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2005 allows the state to confiscate the property of prescribed drug offenders, often abbreviated as PDOs, into a very useful pool of funds known as the Justice Rehabilitation Fund.

A quick search online via the Legal Services Commission's website gives a crystal-clear and very useful definition on the purpose of the fund, and I quote:

This Fund sits separately from the Victims of Crime Fund and enables the Attorney-General to fund programs and facilities for the benefit of offenders, victims and other persons, that will further crime prevention and rehabilitation strategies.

Reading through the second reading speech of the Attorney-General in the other place, he also outlines how the fund does a lot of outstanding work, such as supporting programs run by the Carly Ryan Foundation, the funding of youth prevention and victim programs or assisting the Department for Correctional Services to bolster alcohol and other drug support services. This includes programs run by the Aboriginal Drug and Alcohol Council and Offenders Aid and Rehabilitation Services.

I do not know how I will go but I do want to recount a personal story where the fund actually crept into my life. It was a bit of an emotional time, but I will do my best. It is tinged with a bit of humour as well but I am probably not feeling that funny today so maybe you will not laugh. I think roughly about this time in 2018, it was a very, very hot night—much like the nights we have been experiencing recently—and for reasons that I will not explain I ended up in a separate bed to my wife.

I lived in a two-storey house in Blackwood. I can recall a cat that I had, an extremely timid creature, sitting on my bed purring away, and off we went to sleep. It was a hard night to get to sleep; it was a really, really hot night. I was not doing too well in getting the zees or the zeds as you call them, but during the middle of the night the cat just started staring at the window. I was thinking 'What's going on here?' This was a cat that normally spent 25 hours a day under the bed but it was just going berserk. I looked out the window and I could see a little light out the front. I thought, 'Wow, it's 3 o'clock in the morning. That solar light I bought at Aldi is still performing. What a bargain.'

I went back to bed and put my head down again, and the cat was still staring at the window. I thought, 'This is strange. This is really bizarre.' Then, as I looked down, I saw the light move and I thought, 'It's coming out of the shed. This is bizarre.' I was not thinking straight; you have to remember that I had not slept. I went back into my normal bedroom and said to my wife, 'Where's that Maglite I like to stick under the bed?' She said, 'I moved it.' I said, 'Well, you had better get it to me. There's something really bizarre going on downstairs.'

I walked down, and was not expecting what was going to happen next. I walked through a little gap between my house and the car, bleary-eyed and not really seeing or focused on what I could see. I shone my torch into the middle of my lawn and saw my bike coming out of my shed, wheel and all. I quickly realised at that particular point in time that I had blocked the escape route of the bloke who was stealing my bike.

I do not know who, but it was not John Fulbrook who was there that day. Someone from above took me over and I was being piloted by remote control. There was a particular scene I once saw in a war film where if you scream really loudly at someone when you know the odds are against you, they will back off, and so that is what I did. It was haka-like or Pantera-like, whichever way you look at it, but I gave my vocal cords one hell of a stretch that night. This bloke and I were circling around each other in my back garden. My wife was nowhere to be seen. I was screaming out, 'Call the police!'

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr FULBROOK: Do you like a good story? I am trying to tell you one. We were circling around each other. He said, 'Now, now. Knock it off, mate, knock it off. One of us is going to get hurt.' Again, this is not the John that we know: I turned around and said, 'I have the Maglite and I think my chances are pretty good here, mate.' Just as that happened, I noticed a backpack was on his shoulders and I said, 'I would like that backpack, please.' He said, 'You are not going to get it.' I ripped off the backpack, and then I chased him all the way down the garden into the neighbour's. I saw him go into a garage next door, and I thought, 'Okay, it's dark in there,' and he said to somebody, 'That fat dude followed me down the road.' I thought, 'Alright, I am not going in there.'

Eventually the police did show up as my wife eventually called the police, and I calmed down a bit and did all the necessary bits of evidence, and everything else like that, and my wife turned around to me and said, 'You think you are pretty cool, don't you, for doing what you are doing?' I said, 'No, no, I do not feel cool about the whole thing.' She said, 'Can you please tell me, John, why is your face painted white?' I recall that that spare room was where we kept all our baby products, and I went to bed that night with a very, very large pimple on my face thinking that I could cover it in zinc and castor oil or Sudocrem and it would not be there the next day. Of course, this bloke saw me as if I was—what was that film?—Braveheart, where I just came out with warpaint and I had given one massive scream.

To cut a long story short, the police came and probably had a bit of a chuckle. The backpack was handed over to them, and I had several days where I was shaking. My heart was pounding. It was about three days before I finally came around to how it was going to be. We lived in a house with lots of floorboards. The house creaked; it was awful. Every time I heard a floorboard creak I thought, 'Oh no, there is somebody in the house,' so I had to contend with that. While everyone was laughing, on the inside I was pretty frightened about everything.

I then got a call a few weeks later from the police saying, 'You pulling that backpack off has actually done us favours.' I said, 'What has happened?' He said, 'There was a bottle of Gatorade in the bag and we have managed to match some DNA to a particular bloke. We would like you to do an identikit.' So I was rushed down to the Darlington Police Station and I was confident I was going to get this bloke. Sad to say, this is where the story collapses—I could not identify him.

He did appear in court—I cannot remember the exact details of everything—but ultimately there was a deal struck between him and somewhere along the law-enforcement line where he went through a rehabilitation period and had to report to the police on a daily basis and stay clean. The police had told me that he did have a criminal record, he had not offended for many years, and in this particular case he went down and chose the wrong driveway to walk down and encountered me with my warpaint on.

So hopefully for this particular person that fund was a recipe to get him back on track. I am not too sure if it was a situation where it put him right, but we know that we have those resources there and they obviously serve their role. On that particular front, I just wanted to personalise the experience of how somebody living in the suburbs could actually appreciate this particular fund, because I did not lose my bike—I lost nothing—but I wanted to make sure that nobody else had to go through that again. Having that fund there to lock in to try to address problematic people like that I really hope served its purpose. Sorry everybody else but it is back to the script now.

I know that victims of crime should be front and centre of our concerns, but there are instances thanks to illicit substances and much like I was talking about earlier. I forgot to mention how much the bloke stank as we were circling around each other. He was perspiring and it really was not pleasant. I do feel that there are situations where perpetrators should receive appropriate support to ensure that recidivism is kept to a minimum so that as a community we can get them back on track to ensure that they live meaningful lives and contribute back to our society.

In reading the latest data from the Report on Government Services, it seems that we have a lot to be grateful for with the men and women working hard across the system to keep reoffending to a minimum. I imagine that enablers like the Justice Rehabilitation Fund also play a significant role in helping to achieve this, and I do hope that I gave a story that explains that.

That said, any crime is one crime too many and we should do whatever we can to ensure we have the people and infrastructure to help support this approach. This is where a bill like the one before us comes in and plays a significant role. Key to this is the proposed change to allow the Chief Recovery Officer to assist with asset forfeitures which is enshrined within the Fines Enforcement and Debt Recovery Act 2017.

At a time when internationally we hear of government efficiency being the political buzzword, this is a great example of the parliament being a catalyst by allowing the most experienced agency in government to undertake the processes, freeing up resources of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Now we know that Russia actively monitors our speeches so hopefully there are also some other countries that are also listening and maybe they can take a bit of a hint. After all, copying our lead should be seen as the most sincere form of flattery.

Jokes aside, and in noting the serious business of what this bill proposes, what I think is the most important takeaway from efforts here is to highlight a key amendment on how we allocate resources around the confiscation of property. From afar it is easy to make an assumption that just because material property is being seized and has some monetary value, that the process is somehow free and easy to do. It could not be further from the truth and requires significant time, resources and, of course, effort.

Key to this bill will be a change ensuring that confiscations of property for prescribed drug offenders will be treated like everyone else by allowing the costs of administration under the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act to be taken from forfeited assets prior to any residual funds flowing into the Justice Rehabilitation Fund. This is a massive step forward, freeing up police resources and ensuring that drug offenders wear the cost of property confiscations rather than the taxpayer. Over time, I understand from the Attorney-General, unfortunately drug-related confiscations make up the majority of confiscations largely due to an increase in prosecutions triggered by Operation Ironside.

While it is reasonable to be concerned that this may absorb some of the funding that would be channelled into the Justice Rehabilitation Fund, let's not lose sight of the fact that in the ideal world, there would be no funding going into it at all. We should not also overlook the additional resources that can now be freed up by SAPOL to further focus on their core business. Other changes this bill aims to achieve include clarity around simultaneous convictions being considered to define what is a prescribed drug offender, a number of noncompliance penalties under the act to be increased and, on recommendation of SAPOL, an extension of time from 20 to 60 days for police to return property that is initially seized but does not become the subject of a forfeiture order.

I mentioned that this bill has been put together on strong advice from SAPOL and I thank them for their assistance. As members of parliament, we do not often see firsthand the reasons for or the time taken to bring these bills before us. In recognition of all the work done before things arrive here, from the advocates to the hardworking public servants, to the team at parliamentary counsel, and even those in the ministerial office—actually especially those in the ministerial office—I want to express my gratitude for a job well done.

We never want to get too far ahead of ourselves because we know there is always more to do, especially when it comes to law enforcement, but for a split second in time, I would like you all to take a moment to give yourselves a pat on the back for a job well done knowing full well that the next challenge awaits, and you are probably onto it already anyway.

Having said that, we have before us a bill that modernises the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act by delivering significant experiences and also ensures that drug offenders rather than taxpayers cover the costs linked to their actions. This is a good piece of legislation that will deliver a number of positive outcomes. With that, I commend it to the house.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms Stinson): Thank you, member for Playford. That was one of the most gripping stories I have heard in this place. You had me on the edge of my seat and I appreciate you sharing that. I am glad no harm was done to you, and I think I might have to check out whatever facial regime you are employing. Member for Elder.

Ms CLANCY (Elder) (16:50): I rise today in support of the Criminal Assets Confiscation (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill 2025. The bill implements the remaining recommendations of the statutory review into the prescribed drug offender provisions of the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2005—those that were not included in the Criminal Assets Confiscation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Act 2024 that we passed last year.

We all want our communities to be safe communities and I am proud of the steps our government has made towards that goal. Our Malinauskas Labor government has maintained our strong focus on community safety, including in just these first few weeks of the parliamentary year, with more police on the frontline; a new youth crime task force; outlawing posting and boasting to deter people from promoting or glorifying criminal conduct on social media; cracking down on stalking and harassment; reforms to validate victims in mental incompetence verdicts; making it easier for prosecutors to convict drug traffickers, importers and couriers; and the toughest knife laws in the nation.

Understandably, community members are growing increasingly concerned by what they see on the news both here and overseas. When we watched or listened in horror at what occurred in Bondi, it was nearly impossible for us to not feel fear ourselves. Closer to home, we had last year's scare at Westfield Marion and the horrific stabbings in Plympton.

Following these events and suggested reforms raised with some victims of these incidents, the government prepared a discussion paper for public consultation to ensure our knife laws are as tough and effective as possible. SA was already leading the nation with strong knife laws. The 2012 Labor government introduced a suite of reforms, such as prohibiting the sale of knives to minors under 16 and banning the marketing of knives in a way that suggests the knife is suitable for combat. Further changes were also made in 2017 regarding police ability to conduct metal detector searches when reasonably suspecting a person of carrying a weapon.

As a result of that consultation feedback—including with the public, targeted stakeholders and SAPOL—the bill we spoke about last sitting week made the following changes: expanding police metal detector search powers on declared public transport vehicles and at public transport hubs, shopping centres and all licensed premises; expanding police metal detector search powers at any public place where there is a likelihood of violence or disorder; and expanding police metal detector search powers on any person with a relevant history of weapon-related violence or who is a member of a declared criminal organisation.

Fortunately, we do live in a historically ever-safer society and generally do not have to worry about gun violence or terror threats, especially here in South Australia. I can only imagine how scary it must be for people in the United States who drop their children to school knowing that there is a real possibility that their child might not come home.

In my electorate, we are very lucky to have very little variation year to year on reported crime statistics, with the majority of reported offences being theft and property damage. While this is of course a concern, we should feel safe in our suburbs knowing that aggravated robbery, assaults, extortion and homicide are very rare occurrences in Elder and across all electorates in South Australia.

Since becoming elected, I have noticed community members have become more vigilant in observing the behaviour of those around their businesses and homes, which I think is enabled by the increasing popularity of Ring cameras and other devices. I have had reports to my office of neighbours noticing people walking by their properties in the early hours of the morning and people looking into their cars and testing whether those car doors are locked and looking over fences and into windows, and while this is not illegal behaviour I understand why people find it disconcerting to know that individuals are walking around neighbourhoods at night.

In order to address these community concerns, I organised a community safety forum at the Clarence Gardens Bowling Club last year to give people an opportunity to hear from Southern District Police Superintendent Les Buckley and learn how to better protect their homes and personal property. Les talked about SAPOL's recommendations for securing both the inside and outside of a property and reiterated that it is important homeowners take all steps necessary to keep themselves safe.

Residents are encouraged to keep all their items of value somewhere safe and less visible, store keys and garage door remotes out of sight within both the house and vehicle—advice I should really take on board—install a security door with a peephole, ensure house numbers can be easily seen by emergency services in the event of a call-out and ensure—and I know this may seem obvious—that all windows and doors are locked. Think about what can be seen from the street. Do you have overgrown bushes and trees that would hide a person? Do you have tools lying around or ladders that can be used to potentially break into your house?

Les also suggested to make sure to break down the packaging of items you have purchased and put in the recycle bin because these boxes can become a potential information source for what is inside your house. These may seem like simple steps that we have heard before, but it is surprising to know how many people do not lock their cars at night, leave their sunglasses or laptops, in my case, visible or the windows open when they leave the house.

At a street-corner meeting last year in Mitchell Park that I hosted, Superintendent Les Buckley came back and he addressed a specific incident that was of community concern in our electorate, specifically an assault that was heavily reported on in the media as an example of a growing crime wave, which, unsurprisingly, stirred up a lot of worry and anxiety amongst members of the public, particularly my community. Superintendent Buckley was able to confirm for us that the assault was not indicative of an increasing violent crime trend, rather a one-off incident that could occur anywhere, and encouraged residents to be proactive, to report incidences as they occur on 131 444 and, of course, to call 000 if there is an emergency.

I am pleased to say that as a result of my community safety forum and street-corner meetings and a very active community member, we have a new Neighbourhood Watch group forming in my electorate. I would like to thank my constituent Jack, the very active community member of Mitchell Park, for taking on the task of organising his community. It does not take much to complain about crime on Facebook, but it does take a lot of time and effort to actually meet up with your neighbours and work out how positive change can be made.

Whilst statistically we rarely experience assaults in Elder, I do understand that these events do occasionally happen and when they do they are not only terrifying for our community but devastating for the victim and their loved ones. It is therefore necessary to ensure we do everything we can to keep weapons out of the wrong hands, so I am very proud of our knife laws that we introduced last sitting week.

To return to the bill before us, proceeds of crime legislation is part of our work to improve community safety and address crime. This bill helps to provide the legislative tools needed to combat against organised and serious crimes. It aims to deprive people of the financial benefits of engaging in criminal behaviour, with the deprivation of profits seen as an important part of criminal punishment, as well as a deterrent.

In order to deter criminal activity, it is necessary for the state to remove the advantages of crime by confiscating the proceeds, thereby making the option of continuing to commit offences in the future less attractive. By confiscating the economic proceeds of crime, criminal activity is further incapacitated by removing the monetary base from which further crime may be committed or expanded upon.

Just this morning as I was driving into the car park, I was listening to an old episode of the Naked City podcast by John Silvester, a very well known crime journalist who does a column for The Age. The episode was called Inside the Hells Angels, if anyone is interested and would like to look it up. I know the Deputy Premier is quite interested in crime podcasts and does not mind one and I am sure the member for Elizabeth, given his previous occupation, is also quite interested.

This story was about a drug case from the 1980s. Over a 15-month period, four men sold around $1.8 million worth of speed. More than 40 years later, the amount of money that can be involved in these crimes can be even more than $1.8 million, in fact a lot more. Last year, the AFP seized drugs with an estimated street value of $760 million, money that in the hands of organised crime would have likely been used to expand criminal operations.

Whether the criminal operations are of a huge magnitude or substantially smaller, no criminal should be able to benefit financially from their crimes. It is critical that law enforcement have the tools necessary to allow them to adequately investigate and follow where the money trail leads. In addition to punishment, deterrence, incapacitation and enforcement, there are wider social benefits crucial to maintaining the public's perception of, and confidence in, law enforcement strategies.

The police must be seen to be able to remove the benefits of crime from those who choose to participate in illegal activity, and they must be able to do so in a reasonable timeframe. Our community needs to be compensated for the pain and suffering inflicted by drug-related crime on individuals, families and entire communities.

It is also important that the community not be left with the bill for administering, implementing and enforcing confiscations, particularly related to prescribed drug offenders. This amendment will bring the treatment and confiscation of property from prescribed drug offender confiscations into line with those from non-prescribed drug offenders by allowing the costs of administering the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act to be taken from forfeited assets prior to the remainder going to the Justice Rehabilitation Fund. This amendment ensures it is not the taxpayer who will fund the operation of the act. Rather, it is the assets of the criminals that will fund it.

For background, the Justice Rehabilitation Fund has paid into it proceeds of any confiscated assets forfeited to the Crown upon the conviction of a prescribed drug offender. This fund sits separately from the Victims of Crime Fund and supports programs and facilities that aim to prevent crime and rehabilitate offenders, with programs including educational services, employment skills, training, housing assistance, and programs for Aboriginal prisoners and offenders.

As the number of prescribed drug offenders grows, the cost burden has continued to fall on South Australia Police and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to manage. These amendments will allow for the delegation of certain powers from the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Chief Recovery Officer of the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit. This will offer efficiencies in dealing with forfeited assets by allowing the most experienced agency to undertake processes in relation to confiscation and free up resources within the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Drug offender confiscations have now grown to become the majority of all confiscations, with the issue becoming particularly acute with the large numbers of prosecutions associated with Operation Ironside. Three years ago, the AFP led the largest organised crime investigation in the Southern Hemisphere, with more than 4,000 Australian law enforcement officers executing hundreds of search warrants across Australia.

More than 6.6 tonnes of illicit drugs, $55.6 million in illicit cash and 149 weapons and firearms were seized across Australia. There have been 392 alleged offenders charged with 2,355 offences, including the trafficking of illicit drugs, money laundering and dealing in the proceeds of crime. Sixty-three of these offenders have already pleaded guilty or been convicted, resulting in a collective 307 years of imprisonment. Nineteen offenders in South Australia have been sentenced to a collective 100 years of imprisonment. This is on average around five years of time in prison each.

It is so important that we get the proposed procedural amendments in place, because we need to give our law enforcement officers the necessary tools to freeze bank accounts and get the required information quickly from financial institutions in order to prevent prescribed drug offenders from moving their assets out of reach.

Section 160—Giving notices to financial institutions will reduce the timeframe within which a financial institution must provide information or documents pursuant to a notice under section 160, and that will be changed from 14 days to a period of between three and seven business days. This change comes in response to the online nature of banking available today, which allows for the instant transfer of money overseas and out of reach, and the reality that, if given the opportunity, prescribed drug offenders will try to conceal their true assets from police. That was also covered in the podcast I referred to earlier.

By reducing the time banks have to respond to police requests for information, we aim to increase the ability of officers to quickly obtain information regarding criminal assets because our government understands the expectation of the community, which is that convicted criminals should not emerge from prison and have access to the economic proceeds of their crimes.

The AFP-led Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce, related to Operation Ironside, has so far restrained the assets of some of those charged to the tune of $64.6 million. This includes homes, jewellery, vehicles and cash. One alleged offender told the AFP, 'I can take going to jail, but don't take my house.' This really indicates the importance of the economic proceeds of criminal activity even over the prospect of prison time.

Criminal assets confiscation legislation will always be subject to ongoing reform due to the changing nature of criminal activity and its resulting economic advantages. It is an important addition to conviction-based legislative devices and provides another lever to tackle serious crime in our community, something that the Malinauskas Labor government takes very seriously. I commend this bill to the house.

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (17:06): I rise today to make a brief contribution to the Criminal Assets Confiscation (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill. Of course, as other speakers have pointed out, this builds on the work of previous Labor governments, Labor governments of which I have been proud to be a part. The original act that we are amending today was a product of the Rann government and I believe—I could be wrong—of Attorney-General Atkinson at the time, the former member for Croydon. At that time, there was a whole suite of law and order measures that were aimed not just at asset confiscation in terms of drug offenders but also outlaw motorcycle gangs. Those of us who were around remember the long debates and the ensuing court battles that grew out of that legislation.

This act, in particular, was of great interest to me. I was a member of the inaugural Crime and Public Integrity Policy Committee and the police would come in from time to time and talk to us about how this act was actually working in practice. This is just another step in perfecting this type of legislation. As others have pointed out, it is never going to be perfect. It is very difficult; criminals move in the digital world now, and money and assets get moved around very quickly, but the original act does give police the power to freeze and confiscate assets from criminals—to be used by the state, obviously.

These assets originally went to the Victims of Crime Fund; now, of course, they go to the Justice Rehabilitation Fund. That is the beneficiary of these assets and that exists under section 209A of the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act. As others have pointed out, it gives the government funding for all sorts of programs for the benefit of not just victims, as the Victims of Crime Fund does, but also for the benefit of offenders in terms of rehabilitation and reducing recidivism, which I know is not always popular in the general populace but I do know that it is very important in terms of an overall law and order policy. I know that it is of particular interest to the Premier and the former minister for corrections.

Revenue was first collected into this fund in 2019-20 and the balance of the fund at 31 January 2025 was $6.1 million. The fund is currently used, among other things, to increase the capacity of current alcohol and other drug support services offered through the Department for Correctional Services, specifically through expanding the service delivery of the Aboriginal Drug and Alcohol Council (ADAC) and OARS Community Transitions. It also is used for the delivery of Aboriginal cultural programs in prison, such as Ananguku arts workshops—I am sorry about my terrible pronunciation—and Ngangkari clinics supporting the maintenance and practice of Aboriginal traditional medical knowledge.

It also supports a review of the Courts Administration Authority's abuse prevention program, which aims to address domestic and family violence by providing an evidence-based intervention for male perpetrators and safety advice and case management services to intimate female partners or former partners of men participating in the APP.

The Attorney-General's Department will perform the review, and Relationships Australia and Women's Safety Services South Australia have been funded as well to participate, and that is again through this fund collected through this act. The Department of Human Services have developed a 12-month pilot program for a new therapeutic pathway working with young people in the African community at risk of offending behaviour.

The Department for Correctional Services again will, for the Victim Services Unit, keep high-risk victims of domestic violence informed of changes to the circumstances of their perpetrator who is in the custody or under supervision of DCS. This of course dovetails nicely with the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme, which was, to give credit where credit is due, eventually enacted by the previous government, the previous Attorney-General—something which I have supported for a very long time.

As others have mentioned, the fund is also used to fund Project Connect, where the Carly Ryan Foundation delivers the online safety education sessions as part of the Project Connect program, educating children and their parents and communities about the risks of sex-related crimes against children perpetrated or initiated online, and teaching people how to avoid those risks.

Other funding includes to Metropolitan Youth Health within the Women's and Children's Health Network for the supporting parents and children's emotions program. The SPACE program, as it is called—as distinct from another space program—provides intensive support to young parents who are in domestic violence or family violence situations. The program is focused on behaviour change and aims to reduce the risk of children being exposed to violence and subsequently lessen the risk of them developing problematic behaviours in relationships later in life. That is obviously a very important program.

The fund also contributes to Junction SA in delivering domestic and family violence prevention activities on Kangaroo Island. This funding enables Junction SA to deliver the Raiise violence prevention program to increase the capacity of the local youth worker and encourage a community ambassador to advocate for healthy and respectful relationships.

Finally, the fund, among other things, is helping to fund a two-year trial of the Youth Aboriginal Community Court. The Youth Aboriginal Community Court enables Aboriginal children and young people to participate in a culturally responsive program that aims to disrupt escalation points in a young person's offending, address trauma and criminogenic needs, implement protective factors, and divert young people from further offending. As I said, as distinct from the Victims of Crime Fund, the Justice Rehabilitation Fund really attacks the law and order problem from all angles, so it helps offenders as well as victims of crime.

Of course, the genesis really of all these amendments is the South Australia Police, who are obviously at the coalface of a lot of this work. They work tirelessly alongside the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to enforce this act, and of course their insights, born from their boots-on-the-ground experience, have shaped this legislation from the beginning and shaped the amendments that we are discussing today.

Among the procedural enhancements is an expansion of the scope of freezing orders on offenders' bank accounts. These orders are critical to stop the rapid dissipation of assets. To complement this, the bill reduces the timeframes within which banks must respond to police notices about the assets of prescribed drug offenders. In an era where transactions are instantaneous and digital, delays are the ally of the criminal and the enemy of justice. This change ensures that law enforcement connects swiftly and decisively. Equally significant is the new power to demand answers from offenders about legitimate third-party interests in confiscated assets.

We must protect the innocent. We must protect those whose property might be caught up in the schemes of others. We cannot allow offenders to send police on wild-goose chases, chasing baseless claims designed to frustrate the system. This provision strikes that balance. It safeguards the rights of the innocent, while keeping pressure on the guilty.

Efficiency is a recurring theme in this bill and in voting for this bill, as I hope this house will, we are delegating certain powers from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Chief Recovery Officer of the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit. This is all in the name of streamlining administration without compromising oversight.

Furthermore, the bill allows the costs of administering the act to be drawn from forfeited assets before the remainder is transferred to the Justice Rehabilitation Fund that I have just discussed. This mirrors the approach we take with assets seized from non-drug offenders which fund the Victims of Crime Fund after administration costs are met. It is a practical measure and ensures that the system sustains itself while maximising the resources available for rehabilitation and crime prevention.

As I said, it is important that we do not lose sight of what the Justice Rehabilitation Fund represents. It is not merely a pool of money; it is a commitment to breaking the cycle of crime. As I said, it is not like the Victims of Crime Fund, where the money is spent, as it should be, on recompensing the victims of crimes and other misdemeanours, but it importantly attacks the law and order problem from many sides.

It funds programs and facilities that support offenders seeking redemption, victims seeking recovery and communities overall seeking safety, so there is a messaging aspect to this as well that sends a very clear message to the community that ill-gotten gains will be confiscated and will be used for good, rather than just put back in the pockets of offenders, because we are talking about very high-value individuals, in some cases, and very high-value assets that the police and the DPP are seeking to recover, so every dollar seized from a drug trafficker and redirected into this fund is a dollar invested in a better future really for our whole society.

The bill also clarifies that simultaneous convictions will count towards the definition of a prescribed drug offender and this, of course, aligns with the reasoning of the Supreme Court of South Australia—as the honourable member opposite will be very aware—in DPP v Donnelly, ensuring consistency between judicial interpretation and legislative intent. It closes a potential loophole and it reinforces the act's purpose.

On the matter of penalties, we are here today increasing several noncompliance penalties under the act. When we are dealing with what I pointed out were high-value assets—it could be luxury homes, fleets of cars or, indeed, stacks of cash hidden in offshore accounts—the penalties must really match the crime. They must reflect the scale of the offending and serve as a genuine deterrent. It may seem trite to say, but a slap on the wrist will not do. These increases, as I said, informed by an ongoing feedback from SAPOL every step of the way, ensure that the consequences match the crime.

There is one further change I wish to highlight, and it speaks to the pragmatism of this bill. Currently, police have just 25 days to return seized property that does not ultimately become subject to a forfeiture order. Clearly this is inadequate and SAPOL have told us that this timeframe is much too tight, particularly in complex cases where ownership must be verified and legal processes navigated. The bill extends this period then from 25 days to 60 days. It is a simple adjustment, it is a simple amendment to the act, but it does ensure that police can do their job thoroughly without undue pressure, while still respecting the rights of property owners.

This bill is about keeping the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act fit for purpose. It reflects, as I have pointed out, the realities of modern crime: it is fast moving, often operating in the digital world, it is sophisticated and it is often nowadays, more than ever, international in scope. It strengthens the partnership between law enforcement and the justice system, it balances the need to punish with the imperative to protect and rehabilitate and, above all perhaps, it sends a clear message to those who profit from the misery of drug addiction that your wealth will not shield you and your gains will ultimately be turned against you and used to help others. I commend this bill to the house and I hope that the rest of members here will do the same.

The SPEAKER: The member for Elizabeth mentioned Junction Australia's work on Kangaroo Island. I was there last Thursday having another meeting with Maree Baldwin, who does a terrific job on the island with people not just in Kingscote but right across Kangaroo Island and also Maria Palumbo, who heads up Junction Australia in South Australia.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (17:19): I stand here to support this bill. The Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2005 allows the state to confiscate the property of prescribed drug offenders and place those proceeds into the Justice Rehabilitation Fund. Before I cover what this bill seeks to do, I think it is important to just recap what the fund does. What the fund does is actually use proceeds garnered from people involved in criminal activities, particularly those involved in some sort of drug criminal activity, to help rehabilitate people in our community.

As the member for Elizabeth quite clearly outlined, by reinvesting these funds into rehabilitation programs we actually make our community safer. The reality is that despite how many police officers you have on the beat, the best way to reduce crime and to have a safer community is to have programs which actually change people's views about criminal behaviour, and they do not commit the crime in the first place.

Under section 209A of the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2005, the funds in the Justice Rehabilitation Fund can be used, and have been used, for example, to increase the capacity of current alcohol and other drug-related support services which are offered through the Department for Correctional Services. These programs help people to rehabilitate and hopefully, when they leave the justice system, they do not commit crimes again, and so it is a good investment.

It has also supported the review of the Courts Administration Authority's Abuse Prevention Program which aims to address domestic and family violence by providing an evidence-based intervention for male perpetrators, and safety advice and case management services to intimate female partners, or former partners of men participating in the APP program. Again, this is a program that seeks to minimise the amount of reoffending.

The funds have also been used by the Department of Human Services to develop a 12-month pilot program for a new therapeutic pathway working with young people in the African community at risk of offending behaviour. This is an important program and is no different to a lot of other emerging communities in our state and in our country where often the transition from one's original country to this one can be difficult and problematic and, therefore, we need to support those young people to make sure that they do not reoffend. Often there are new cultures, there are cultural difficulties in their own families, and there is a whole range of issues which create conflict, and often their behaviour is not appropriate. This sort of program actually helps to minimise that.

The Department for Correctional Services also uses some of the funds for the Victims Services Unit, keeping high-risk victims of domestic violence informed of changes to the circumstances of their perpetrator. Again, that is one of the major things we hear about: that victims of domestic violence are concerned about their own personal safety when the perpetrator is allowed out of the prison system.

The funds have also been used for Project Connect—the Carly Ryan Foundation—to deliver online safety education sessions as part of the Project Connect program, educating children and their parents and communities about the risk of sex-related crimes against children perpetrated or initiated online, and how to avoid those risks. Again, it is an increasing problem in our community with access to online facilities. Often it is young people who perhaps lack the maturity to fully understand the implications of their behaviour. They often get involved in online activities which actually lead to crime and also impact on their personal safety.

Funds have also been used by the Metropolitan Youth Health within the Women's and Children's Health Network for Supporting Parents and Children's Emotions, otherwise referred to as the SPACE program. The SPACE program provides intensive support to young parents who are in a domestic and family violence situation. The program is focused on behaviour change and aims to reduce the risk of children being exposed to violence and subsequently lessen the risk of them developing problematic behaviours in relationships later in life.

The week before last I attended an International Women's Day event in my town of Gawler where the guest speaker was Dr Naomi Rutten. Dr Naomi Rutten is a GP who specialises in mental health and, in particular, mental health issues which arise from traumatic events in people's lives. Her therapy is based on what they call trauma-advised behaviours.

A lot of mental health issues faced by teenagers and young adults often have their origins in their childhood days when they experienced one or a number of traumas, and Dr Rutten does great work in this area. In fact, at the moment she is trying to establish a clinic in Gawler to work with other professionals to make sure she can provide a holistic service to people, whether younger or older, who are experiencing difficulties in their lives as a result of trauma. She is working really hard to set this clinic up, and she actually has that in her sight now, but she does lack some funding so she has put a bit of an SOS out to see if we can get some funding.

Getting therapy services and other support services anywhere in this state is difficult, but as you go further from the centre of town it becomes much more difficult; it is just not available. Dr Rutten's waitlist is months and months and months, which is not good for people who are experiencing trauma in their lives.

Mr Speaker, you also mentioned the Junction SA program on Kangaroo Island—a rural region that often needs more attention because of a whole range of factors, and Junction SA is providing services from this fund on Kangaroo Island. Some of these are services provided from the Justice Rehabilitation Fund. As you can see, they are quite broad. Importantly, their one major focus is ensuring that we try to prevent people from getting into the justice system. If they are in the justice system, the idea is to transition them out of the justice system and make sure they do not re-enter it, and ultimately we are all safer because of that. If penalties alone deterred people, there would be no crime in America and yet America has one of the highest crime rates in the world. So we need to look much more at what you might call sociocultural issues and a whole range of other factors to make sure that people do not offend.

Getting back to the provisions of this bill, the bill contains a number of amendments based on the advice of South Australia Police. Since they are the coalface of crime prevention, we need to hear what they say. There are a number of procedural amendments, including the scope of freezing orders placed on bank accounts that belong to offenders, as well as a reduction of timeframes in which banks have to respond to notices from police with information as to the assets they hold in relation to the prescribed drug offenders. One thing that deters people from committing crimes is knowing they cannot live on the proceeds. I think that is one area—sorry?—

The Hon. S.E. Close interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes, one thing that I think is a deterrent is if what people are seeking to gain is taken away from them. There are actually two things: one is the law on that; and, secondly, there has to be a high probability that that does occur. So this bill actually improves the efficiency of police and the Director of Public Prosecution's ability to confiscate those properties. So there is a higher probability that if they make money from drug-related behaviour or activities they will lose that, which is really important, and we can invest those funds into more rehabilitation. Those banking changes are designed to also reflect the changes in online banking to enable police and the DPP to act quicker so people cannot shift money elsewhere.

Similarly, there is a new power to demand answers from offenders as to legitimate third-party interests to make sure that property on innocent parties is protected while not sending law enforcement on a wild-goose chase following up warrantless claims made by PDOs.

Also, one of the amendments increases the effectiveness and efficiency of the scheme, including the delegation of certain powers from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Chief Recovery Officer of the Fines Enforcement and Recovery Unit. Their job is to enforce and recover moneys and fines, and they are quite good at it. So they can exercise this power to recover and confiscate assets, the balance of which is put into the Justice Rehabilitation Fund. This is identical to how assets are seized from other non-drug offenders and used to pay administration costs prior to being placed in the Victims of Crime Fund. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

At 17:30 the house adjourned until Wednesday 19 March 2025 at 10:30am.