HYDROPONICS INDUSTRY CONTROL BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: When I was completing the debate on the second reading, the Hon. Mr Brokenshire indicated that he had wished to speak but did not have an opportunity to do so. So, rather than hold up the bill, I indicated to the Hon. Mr Brokenshire that he would be able to make some comments on clause 1. The government is happy to give the honourable member some indulgence in relation to that if the rest of the committee agrees.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Yes, that's quite right.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I will be brief, bearing in mind the workload of the council. I thank the committee for allowing me to make a contribution on clause 1. Whilst I will be brief, I do not speak in a light manner when it comes to this particular subject matter. In fact, I advise the committee that I support this bill. I have one amendment tabled. The only thing I would say, frankly, is that it is eight years too late.

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: That is right, 28 years too late. Interestingly enough, in the documentation that I have here is all the work that was actually done and was virtually completed on the eve of the election in 2002. I have all the documentation here. That was work that I was very well aware of. The sad part is that that documentation has taken eight years to get to where it is actually going into legislation. So, whilst I commend the government for this, the question that I want to put on the public record is: why did it take eight years—and we are now on the eve of another election—before that documentation became law?

The only other points I would make is that all the evidence that I saw in the local electorate or as police minister was that cannabis is a gateway drug in that it is not to be taken lightly, and we need to jump from the greatest height possible to do whatever we can to combat cannabis production in South Australia. Clearly, we know that, whilst some people legitimately grow tomatoes, cucumbers and lettuces, the sad reality is that the majority of hydroponic equipment is used for the growing of cannabis.

I have seen the international documentation and it is not a pretty sight to see that South Australia has the largest cannabis leaf—this is identified by international policing and law security work across the world; the size of the leaf depends on how much cannabis comes from a particular region—of anywhere in the southern hemisphere. That is something that we cannot be proud of, because it is damaging a lot of people. I commend the bill to the parliament.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I take this opportunity, on clause 1, to answer some questions asked by the Hon. Mr Ridgway, which I do not think I placed on the record when we last addressed this bill. The honourable member has again inquired as to why the minister is able to give directions to the commissioner. I explained the reasons when the bill was last debated and believe it needs no further explanation.

The honourable member asked how the application and annual licence fees were arrived at. In a licensing regime it is not unusual for application fees and ongoing annual fees to be charged. As members would appreciate, there are costs associated with the licensing process, including the taking of fingerprints, probity checks and the production of identification cards. In addition to this, I am advised that a number of ongoing services will be provided to proprietors, including advice on consumer and retailer rights, education and awareness advice and campaigns, as well as technical support. These services are similar to those provided by OCBA in the administration of other licensing schemes, including, as the honourable member quite rightly asserted, that which is used in the security industry. I have provided a schedule of fees charged by OCBA for the licensing of the security industry. Members will note that they are very similar to those that were alluded to by the leader in his speech. It should be noted that the final fee schedule is yet to be determined and will be contained in the regulations when they are developed.

The honourable member sought my assurance that SAPOL will have sufficient resources to evaluate all licensing applications in the transitional period. I have been advised by SAPOL that it is, in fact, now establishing processes to work with the industry to ensure that business owners who seek to become a licence holder will have their application processed during the three month transitional period. I commend SAPOL for taking the initiative to ensure that no business owner is disadvantaged.

The Hon. Mr Ridgway sought clarification as to the process by which the commissioner can assess the propriety of an applicant for a dealer's licence. Subject to clause 11 of the bill, the commissioner may, on application by a person, issue or renew a hydroponic dealer's licence. The commissioner must refuse to issue the licence if the applicant has been found guilty of a prescribed offence within a five year period immediately preceding the application, or is the subject of a control order issued under the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008, or if it appears to the commissioner that it would be contrary to the public interest, or any other reason declared by regulations. While the prescribed offences are yet to be determined, it is likely that they will relate to drug offences.

In determining whether to issue a licence, the commissioner may have regard to the reputation, honesty and integrity of the applicant, and the reputation, honesty and integrity of people with whom the applicant associates or has associated with. Matters which may be taken into account include the totality of a person's criminal history, which would include offences for which the person has been convicted outside the five year period.

The honourable member indicated that the Retail Traders Association expressed concern regarding the transitional provisions and online transaction process. I can advise the leader that the Minister for Police and representatives of SAPOL have met with the Retail Traders Association to address these concerns. However, in explanation, the transitional provisions ensure that SAPOL process the applications for a dealer's licence in a timely manner. It should be noted that only persons who wish to trade in the prescribed items need apply for a licence.

As I have already advised, SAPOL is currently preparing a transition plan with the intention of communicating with industry members at the earliest opportunity prior to the commencement of the legislations. SAPOL has advised me that it will have sufficient resources in place to ensure that businesses are licensed within the transition period. It should, however, be noted that business cooperation is required, with those who choose to apply late in the transition period facing the prospect of having to cease trade until their licence application is processed. In other words, get the application in early, I believe, is the message.

Pursuant to clause 23, licence holders are required to keep records of prescribed transactions. The records may be required to be transferred to SAPOL electronically. While much of the detail is yet to be determined as it will be contained in the regulations, I can advise that information, including the business details of the retailer, the name of the approved industry employee conducting the transaction, the time, date and location of the transaction, the details of the purchaser and a description of the prescribed items purchased, will probably be required. The information will need to be transmitted electronically to SAPOL in a reasonable time frame, possibly within three days of the transaction.

SAPOL is still developing the system by which the information will be transmitted, and may require an interim process. However, SAPOL has advised me that it will work closely with the industry to ensure compliance and to assist with any transitional periods. I referred earlier to a table of OCBA fees, and I now table that document.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I move:

Page 3, lines 13 to 17 [clause 3, definition of 'criminal intelligence']—Delete the definition

This is the first of several amendments that relate to criminal intelligence. It proposes to delete 'criminal intelligence' from this and several other clauses.

My objections to criminal intelligence are well known. Criminal intelligence is essentially secret evidence that cannot be challenged or scrutinised by the person who may be the subject of it, so the actual effect could be that someone may be denied a licence to operate or a person may be denied employment in the industry on the basis of evidence that they cannot challenge because neither they nor their lawyer can see it. This removes a basic right that has been enshrined in our system until quite recently.

Let us reflect on how we have slid down this slope. These sorts of powers started on the basis that we had to protect ourselves from terrorism and the prospect of thousands of deaths. They moved to bikies and organised crime, and now this idea of criminal intelligence, or secret evidence, undermining a fairly fundamental premise of our justice system, is turning up in hydroponics—some of which includes drugs, some of which could include Bunnings! Later this year we will be dealing with the application of these sorts of ideas to second-hand goods dealers.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: Yes; the Second-hand Goods Bill has criminal intelligence provisions in it as well. The point made at the very start of this process, in the debates around terrorism, was that we are on a slippery slope and we are sliding down that slope; we are applying these ideas, which were once argued to be exceptions to deal with great threats to health and safety, into standard law and order tools. The maxims that power corrupts, and that things done in secret, or powers that are exercised in secret, are likely to be abused, apply here. Yet again, we turn criminal intelligence into a standard crime-fighting tool.

There is no doubt at all that there is a criminal element in this industry; there is probably a criminal element in the second-hand goods industry. The question is: what price do you pay to fight crime? What price do you pay to make yourself safe? If it comes down to undermining basic rights in one area, and watching that undermining of rights spread to other areas, then we are in fact diminishing all our rights and safety. One of the lessons of history is that we need government and we need police to protect ourselves from crime, but another lesson is that we also need to protect ourselves from government. When we move to a default position of handing over great powers to governments and police to enable them to exercise great powers in secret, without scrutiny or challenge, I believe that we are on dangerous ground.

As I said, this is a test case for several other amendments. I think the fundamental idea of criminal intelligence is objectionable. There was a point, having this argument, about how we would prevent future twin towers, about the risk to thousands of lives; that is perhaps the sort of ground on which it is worth having this argument. We are now down to hydroponics; later on we will be down to second-hand goods. Where will this end? We are not starting on a slippery slope, we are well down one, and honourable members will see that throughout the rest of this year, as the idea of criminal intelligence is rolled into more and more legislation and becomes just an everyday practice in law enforcement.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I would have thought that criminal ignorance would be a much greater threat to the future of society than dealing with criminal intelligence. This is the first in a series of amendments filed by the Hon. Mr Winderlich that remove the prohibition against disclosing information classified as 'criminal intelligence' that is submitted by the commissioner in the course of making consideration to grant a hydroponic equipment dealer's licence, approval of a hydroponic industry employee, or providing advice to the minister for applications for exemptions to the requirements of the act.

The Hon. Mr Winderlich suggested that this should be a test amendment. It deletes the definition of 'criminal intelligence' from clause 3 of the bill. This definition is crucial to the provisions that prohibit disclosure of criminal intelligence, and for this reason the amendment is opposed. 'Criminal intelligence' is defined in clause 3 of the bill to mean:

information relating to actual or suspected criminal activity (whether in this state or elsewhere) the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to produce criminal investigations, to enable the discovery of the existence or identity of a confidential source of information relevant to law enforcement or to endanger a person's life or physical safety;

For obvious reasons, intelligence cannot be disclosed to the criminals to whom it relates. Criminal intelligence may take the form of information from police informants or undercover officers, from covert surveillance (including electronic surveillance), or from victims of crime and other witnesses. What is important is that the information, whatever its source, satisfies the definition in clause 3 of the bill. If it does not, it is not criminal intelligence and it is not protected from disclosure.

Criminal intelligence is protected from disclosure by clauses 7 and 20 of the bill. Clause 7 describes how information that has been classified as 'criminal intelligence' by the Commissioner of Police may be used or disclosed in regard to the refusal of an application for a licence or an approval for a renewal, or varies or revokes a condition or imposes a new condition of a licence or approval, or revokes or proposes to revoke a licence or approval under the act. Where proceedings relating to a licence or approval are being determined by the court, the court must, on application by the Commissioner of Police, take steps to maintain confidentiality of information classified by the commissioner as 'criminal intelligence'.

Clause 20 provides for a person to appeal to the District Court if he or she is dissatisfied with a decision of the Commissioner of Police. The commissioner is required to provide in writing the reasons for his or her decision, unless that decision is based on information which has been classified as 'criminal intelligence'. These clauses are by no means unique. Information in the nature of criminal intelligence, as defined in the bill that is relevant to administrative decisions and determinations, or that is tendered as evidence in court proceedings, is protected from disclosure under a number of South Australian acts, including acts that contain licensing regimes similar to that proposed in this bill. Examples are the Liquor Licensing Act and the Security and Investigation Agents Act. Nor is South Australia alone in recognising the need to protect highly sensitive information from disclosure in court proceedings. Section 76(2) of the Western Australian Crime and Corruption Commission Act 2003, for example, protects from disclosure criminal intelligence tendered in review proceedings under that state's anti-fortification provisions.

Members may also be aware that claims for public interest immunity against disclosure of information of the kind that would meet the definition of criminal intelligence have been a feature of our legal system for some time. Criminal intelligence provisions, including provisions that are substantially the same as those the Hon. Mr Winderlich seeks to delete from this bill, have been found to be constitutional by the High Court. These provisions are important. Without them, information relevant to applications for a licence by a hydroponics equipment dealer, applications for approval as a hydroponics industry employee, or any court appeals of the decisions of the Commissioner of Police will be unable to be put before the Commissioner of Police or the District Court, as to do so would risk disclosure of the information to the criminals about whom it relates.

I stress again that the only information that will come within the definition is information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to prejudice criminal investigations, enable the discovery of a confidential source of information or endanger a person's life or physical safety. The government's position is that information that could prejudice criminal investigations, disclose a confidential source of information or place a person's life or physical safety at risk should not be disclosed to the criminals about whom it relates. For this reason the government opposes this amendment and any other that seeks to remove the protection from disclosure afforded to criminal intelligence.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The opposition will oppose the Hon. Mr Winderlich's amendments. We understand a little of what he is trying to achieve, but I questioned assistant commissioner Harrison about this provision when we had a briefing on this bill. While the Hon. Mr Winderlich talks of criminal intelligence also being a factor in the Second-hand Goods Bill, we are dealing here with cannabis and the scourge of drugs and, while it is still an illegal activity in the Second-hand Goods Bill, it does not affect, as drugs do, the lives of other people. With those few words, the opposition will not support the Hon. Mr Winderlich's amendments.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I also indicate that I will not support the Hon. David Winderlich's amendments. To go back very briefly to 2006, when I introduced the drug using paraphernalia bill, and I had a hydroponics bill tacked on to the back of it, I referred to the findings of the royal commission conducted by the Hon. Justice Athol Moffitt on the link between drugs and organised crime. In the preface of that book he reminded us, in 1976 or 1978 (I am not sure from memory), of the link between organised crime and the drug trade and stated that if we did not act very soon it would be very difficult to wind back the influence that organised crime was having throughout this country because of its connection with the drug trade. What he wrote in his preface has turned out to be quite an accurate prediction of the predicament in which we find ourselves, specifically in South Australia.

To now have to rely on criminal intelligence is a sign of the times. As I have said many times in regard to drugs, we have taken our hand off the wheel and have gone to sleep. It is now at a point where the drug and cannabis trade is significant, to say the least. Now we have to put in place these kinds of laws that rely on criminal intelligence because way back then, when the warning signs were out, royal commissions were being undertaken and reports were being written, no government took notice. So now it is tough that we have to hand over these extra powers to the government and the police, but that is what happens when we do not act and intervene at the very beginning with the early signs of such things becoming a problem.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 4 and 5 passed.

Clause 6.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: My next amendment is consequential, so I will not move it.

Clause passed.

Clauses 7 to 10 passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 7—

After line 5—Insert:

(ia) if the person has expiated a simple cannabis offence (within the meaning of section 45A of the Controlled Substances Act 1984) within the 5 years immediately preceding the application; or

(ib) if the person has been referred to a drug assessment service in relation to a simple possession offence (within the meaning of the Controlled Substances Act 1984) within the 5 years immediately preceding the application; or

After line 10—Insert:

(ia) if any director of the applicant has expiated a simple cannabis offence (within the meaning of section 45A of the Controlled Substances Act 1984) within the 5 years immediately preceding the application; or

(ib) if any director of the applicant has been referred to a drug assessment service in relation to a simple possession offence (within the meaning of the Controlled Substances Act 1984) within the 5 years immediately preceding the application; or

These amendments are tough, I acknowledge. They require the commissioner to refuse to issue a licence to a person to deal or work in hydroponics if they have, first, expiated even a simple cannabis offence in the past five years or, secondly, if they have taken a diversion for a simple possession offence of any other illicit drug. My first amendment deals with licences to deal, the second deals with directors of companies who want to deal, and the third deals with hydroponics industry employees. In all three cases there are two limbs: first, the cannabis expiation offences and, secondly, the drug diversions for illicit drug possession.

I do not apologise for being tough on this. The clawback period is five years and, if people are absolutely genuine about wanting to be in the hydroponics industry, I believe they are not persons who have not gone anywhere near illicit drugs, including cannabis, in the previous five years. It is not our fault that the laws have been slack in relation to drug possession. If the committee does not want to support these amendments and they are lost, I would certainly ask the government to look at the submissions made in the past. As I have said, I have all the stuff here, and I know that the government has it, too. I would ask that the government also look at what has recently been received by SAPOL concerning persons who have expiated offences for the cultivation of cannabis in the past, perhaps back even further than five years.

We have to ensure that people who got away with cultivating cannabis under soft laws in the past cannot hide from their criminal history when considered for their participation in the hydroponics industry. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming about the backdoor drug dealing and all the illegal activities that go on in nearly all of these hydroponics shops. We have to jump on it from the greatest possible height for the long-term interests of our future generations.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: These amendments are the first in a series filed by the Hon. Mr Brokenshire that would broaden the circumstances under which the Commissioner of Police must refuse the application for a licence. I suggest that we should use this as a test amendment.

Clause 11 sets out how a person can obtain a hydroponics dealer's licence. The clause requires the commissioner to be satisfied that the applicant, or each director of the applicant, is a fit and proper person to hold a licence. The clause also sets out circumstances in which the commissioner must refuse a licence. The commissioner must refuse to issue a licence if the person concerned has been found guilty of a prescribed offence within five years immediately preceding the application, if the person is the subject of a control order within the meaning of the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008, if it would be contrary to the public interest, or any other reason prescribed by regulations.

The amendments propose to require the commissioner to refuse a natural person or director a licence if, in the preceding five years, they have been issued an expiation notice for a simple cannabis offence or referred to a drug assessment panel in relation to a simple possession offence. The expiation of an offence does not constitute an admission of guilt or civil liability, nor is it regarded as evidence tending to establish guilt, and therefore cannot be used for the purposes of sentencing for any relevant offence.

Both the expiation and diversion schemes are designed for the purpose of rehabilitation rather than prosecution. The introduction of such an amendment would not be beneficial to the overall strategy to reduce drug use and it would clog courts with unnecessary hearings. For these reasons, the government opposes the amendment, although we can certainly understand why the honourable member would seek to deal with it. I suggest that, given that the expiation offence does not constitute an admission of guilt or civil liability, it would be unwise to use that as the basis to knock back a licence.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that the opposition will not be supporting the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's amendments. A little like the minister, I understand where the Hon. Robert Brokenshire is coming from. However, if we look at the clause to which he is seeking to add a line—'if a person has been found guilty of a prescribed offence within five years immediately preceding the application'—my assumption is that any particular offences that SAPOL believes to be worthy of being classified as a prescribed offence (whatever they happen to be at the time) will be where the commissioner can exercise his or her judgment, obviously with advice from their officers that an offence now needs to be a prescribed offence.

Certainly, as the minister pointed out, it could be a simple expiation notice or somebody being referred to some sort of drug diversion course or rehabilitation. While I understand what the Hon. Robert Brokenshire is trying to toughen up, the opposition's view is that, in the very early stages, those people probably deserve to have an opportunity to clean up their act. Having said that, we think that the bill leaves it at the discretion of the commissioner if intelligence says that those offences need to become prescribed offences. So, with those comments, I indicate that we will not be supporting the amendments.

Amendments negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 12 to 15 passed.

Clause 16.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I move:

Page 9, line 20 [clause 16c]—Delete ', (b)'

As we have determined, this is, in effect, a test case for three amendments that are linked to control orders. I will speak generally about the application of control orders. I have two major difficulties with control orders, and one is that you need not have been convicted of an offence to be subject to a control order: you need simply either to be a member of a declared organisation or subject to a control order by virtue of a past offence.

I think there is a problem with determining someone's basic ability to conduct a certain line of business based on the fact that they may never have committed an offence that is related to that minor business. They may never have committed a drug offence, or it may have been a long time ago. I think that is a great difficulty with the idea of control orders in this context and using them as a general trigger to deal with a very specific problem.

As a number of members have indicated, the problem we are trying to address is the role of organised crime in the drug trade. It seems to me that, when determining the rights of an individual person, that person should have committed either some offence that is linked to drugs or at least some offence because, as I said, they may not have committed an offence at all, or they may have been in a situation in which, at the age of 20 or 40, you committed a drug offence. I think that is a real problem in the use of control orders in making these kinds of determinations.

Amendments Nos 5 and 6 are consequential, but I think that amendment No. 11 may need to be dealt with separately because it is also about control orders but proposes a specific amendment, whereas amendments Nos 5 and 6 delete a section. I think that my amendment No. 4 to clause 11 will still need to be recommitted.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I will talk to all the amendments moved by the Hon. Mr Winderlich in this series, that is, to clauses 11, 16 and other clauses. The series of amendments filed by the Hon. Mr Winderlich removes the ability of the Commissioner of Police, when making a decision on whether to grant a hydroponics equipment dealer's licence, or approve a person as a hydroponics industry employee, from taking into consideration whether the person is the subject of a control order within the meaning of the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008.

Clause 11 sets out how a person can obtain a hydroponics dealer's licence. The clause requires the Commissioner of Police to be satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold a licence. It also provides for circumstances in which the commissioner may refuse a licence application. Subclauses (4)(a) and (4)(b) indicate that the commissioner must refuse to issue a licence to a natural person or body corporate if the person has been found guilty of a prescribed offence within the five years immediately preceding the application or if the person is subject to a control order within the meaning of the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008.

The Hon. Mr Winderlich's amendment seeks to delete from subclauses (4)(a) and (4)(b) that the commissioner must refuse a licence application if the person or director of a body corporate is subject to a control order within the meaning of the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act. Clause 16 enables a person who has lodged an application for approval as a hydroponics industry and employee to carry out prescribed duties prior to approval.

However, the temporary approval does not apply if the person has been previously refused approval, has had the approval revoked or has been refused on public interest grounds, which include being the subject of a control order within the meaning of the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act. The Hon. Mr Winderlich's amendment seeks to delete from clause 16C the ability to prevent a person from a temporary approval if they are the subject of a control order within the meaning of the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act.

Clause 17 sets out how a person can obtain approval as a hydroponics industry employee. The clause sets out circumstances in which the Commissioner of Police must refuse an approval application, which are the same grounds as an application for a licence and include the non-approval if the applicant is the subject of a control order within the meaning of the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act.

The Hon. Mr Winderlich's amendment seeks to delete from clause 17(4)(b) the ability to prevent a person from approval to work in the industry if they are the subject of a control order within the meaning of the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act. The control order may be issued only against a person who is a member of a declared organisation or who engages or has engaged in serious criminal activity. The purpose of the bill is to prevent infiltration of the hydroponics industry by criminals or criminal groups.

SAPOL has already identified organised criminal syndicates involved in the hydroponics industry, including the cultivation of cannabis for commercial purposes. The government opposes all these amendments as it can see no reason why a person who, by the issuing of a control order, has demonstrated their involvement in serious criminal activity should participate in the hydroponics industry.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate that the opposition will not be supporting the Hon. Mr Winderlich's amendments. The minister clearly outlined the link between organised crime, the cultivation of hydroponic cannabis and the distribution and manufacture of a whole range of other illicit substances, as well.

We had some extensive briefings with assistant commissioner Harrison. When reading this amendment, there really does not seem to be any benefit at all; it does not enhance the bill. Certainly the opposition wants SAPOL to have every tool at its disposal to have the biggest impact on this industry.

SAPOL acknowledges that this will not control every avenue for the sale of these goods and the prescribed goods mentioned in this bill. However, it certainly will frustrate the industry and make it more difficult for the cultivation of hydroponic cannabis. With those few words, I indicate that we will not be supporting these amendments.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 17 to 35 passed.

Clause 36.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: I move:

Page 16, lines 1 to 14—Delete the clause

This amendment deletes clause 36(2). Subclause (2) in the bill provides that in any legal proceedings a document apparently certified by the commissioner to be a licence, approval or other document issued under this act or to be a copy of such a licence, approval or other document will be accepted as such in the absence of proof to the contrary. This effectively means that the commissioner does not need to prove his case. The commissioner's determination is taken as a fact that the person is operating without a licence. The commissioner does not need to furnish a copy of the relevant documentation; their word is deemed to be enough. My amendment to delete this clause would simply mean that the commissioner must prove their case and supply evidence for their determination.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: This amendment deletes clause 36 evidentiary provisions. Clause 36 provides that certain allegations in the complaint for an offence against this act will be taken to be proved in the absence of proof to the contrary. The clause is designed to prevent the court from being subject to the expense and time of litigation on matters which can easily be proved by the prosecution. This clause is by no means unique and can be found in other legislation, including the Firearms Act 1977 and the Controlled Substances Act 1984. If a person wishes to dispute the evidence, provisions exist for this to occur during normal court proceedings. The government opposes the amendment.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Remaining clauses (37 and 38), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.