CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 28 September 2010.)

Clause 1 passed.

Clauses 2 to 4 passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I move:

Page 2, line 20 [clause 5(1), inserted subsection (2a)—Delete:

(other than cannabis, cannabis resin or cannabis oil)

This amendment seeks to ensure that cannabis, cannabis resin and cannabis oil are included as drugs that can be taken into consideration under this legislation. I find it quite amazing that, after all the science, the government would seek to exclude cannabis or cannabis products from this piece of legislation. I urge honourable members to keep our legislation consistent.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I indicate, as I did in my second reading contribution, that the government supports the amendment.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Just for the record, Family First also supports the amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: By way of preface to my questions, I note that we have a so-called parliamentary secretary representing the government. I reserve my right to seek an undertaking from the minister. As I understand it, parliamentary secretaries do not sit in cabinet and, therefore, from my understanding, cannot speak for the government. I am happy for Mr Finnigan to pass on comments from officers but, when I seek an undertaking from the government, I will reserve the right to seek an adjournment of the committee and achieve an undertaking from the executive.

In relation to my questions, I asked the government some time ago for details about the number of prescribed licensed premises, and I thank Mr Finnigan for providing that information at the end of his second reading contribution. It does, though, raise the question of the government's comments in both houses, that it considers it would be too broad to apply the trafficking in all licensed premises. I note from the figures that Mr Finnigan gave us that 84 per cent of licensed premises are covered by this clause. What does the government mean by 'broad'? That seems to be a very broad application.

The CHAIRMAN: Just on your statement beforehand, the Hon. Mr Finnigan, being part of the government's caucus, could be under instructions from the caucus, which includes cabinet members, of course.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would be very interested to know the views of the caucus. The government of South Australia is actually in control of the executive, not the caucus. I actually want the government to make commitments on the implementation of legislation because, to be frank, the opposition may well oppose clauses if we cannot commit to those clauses with an undertaking from the government on the record. An undertaking from a government backbencher is all very interesting, but I want a commitment from the executive, the government of South Australia.

The CHAIRMAN: I am sure that, if the Hon. Mr Finnigan gives you an undertaking, he is giving it under instructions from the government. He is doing such a thing. The Hon. Mr Finnigan.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: To address the point the Hon. Mr Wade has made, parliamentary secretaries, while not members of Executive Council, are understood to be members of the executive. That was clarified a long time ago and that is why they cannot sit on parliamentary committees, so any commitments I give on the record can be understood to be from the government. That is the practice in other jurisdictions, and it is our advice that nothing precludes that practice here.

In relation to the question about 'broad', the bill is aiming to target licensed premises that operate on a regular basis and where young people can be expected to congregate. While there are a number of ad hoc licences, where people may be seeking a licence for a particular party, event or tourist event, such as a wine train, the bill is aiming to target regular licensed premises or licensed premises that operate on a regular basis and at which young people are likely to congregate.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I note that it would have been helpful if the government had given that explanation during the second reading: there is no reference to regularity. I ask the parliamentary secretary, given that new sections 32(6)(a) and (b) are linked by an 'or', is it the case that a licensed premise that is not prescribed may nonetheless be a place of public entertainment within the meaning of new section 32(6)(b)?

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Yes, the 'or' is there, so 'prescribed area' may mean one or the other, (a) or (b).

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Again, I merely note that, whilst the government was proposing not to be broad, it managed to get 84 per cent of licensed premises covered and, on the answer just given, even more will be covered. It does seem to be a broad provision. The opposition does not oppose that, but is bemused by second reading speeches that claim that the provision is not broad. Within the same clause, can we have an explanation of what an event may be in the definition of public entertainment at the bottom of page 3?

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I am advised that the word 'event' is a general word that is meant to be interpreted in light of the words that precede it. So it would be a dance performance, exhibition or other event of that kind.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: By way of further explanation, could we be advised whether it is intended that the word 'event' might include wine festivals, art exhibitions, what colloquially I call multicultural festivals, cinemas and theatres?

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I am advised that, as is usual with any legislation, it will be up to a court to determine the precise application of the definition, but certainly in the case of an art exhibition the word 'exhibition' appears there, so a court would interpret the precise meaning. If the dance performance, exhibit or event is calculated to attract and entertain members of the public, etc., as the rest of the clause reads, you could expect ordinarily that it would fall within the definition.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Thank you for that in relation to art exhibitions. What about wine festivals, multicultural festivals, cinemas and theatres?

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I refer to my earlier answer, that it would be for a court to determine whether or not a particular public entertainment fell within the definition. I do not think I am in a position to give an answer on every specific event.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: With all due respect, the parliament expects that the public might be able to understand the legislation without needing to resort to a court. We do not have advisory opinions readily available, and I do not think it is good law if people have to wait until they get done and then see what the government's legislation might mean. Again I ask: does the government expect that the legislation would impact on wine festivals, multicultural festivals, cinemas and theatres? The government is offering a law which it expects to be imposed. The parliament needs to understand what level of impost the government proposes on community events.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: In general terms the answer would be yes, given that one would expect a cinema showing a film, or a dance festival, to fall within the definition of an exhibition. I am advised that there are certain films which might well attract a particular audience with a special interest in cannabis, depending on the film.

Of course, while we want legislation to be understandable, and we do not expect that people should have to have recourse to courts all the time, I do not think it would be practicable in a bill such as this to specify every single public entertainment that would fall within the definition. It would be thousands.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Just for clarification: I was not expecting that, but I do expect the law to be clear and understandable to the public.

Clause as amended passed.

The CHAIRMAN: The next indicated amendment is new clauses 5A to 5E, in the name of the Hon. Mr Hood. I take it that they are all consequential on each other. Would the Hon. Mr Hood like to move them?

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I will not move them, and I will explain that in a moment, if I may. Essentially this suite of amendments remedies the situation in our state at the moment whereby if someone is apprehended or discovered, if you like, with cannabis on their person they are subject to an expiation fee of between $150 and $300; yet bewilderingly, if someone is discovered with what we might consider to be a so-called harder drug—although, of course, there is debate about that—or what were once considered harder drugs, such as heroin and ecstasy and the like, on them, they are subject to no expiation fee whatsoever. They do have to go to a diversion process, which we wholeheartedly support.

These amendments would have rectified that situation so that people discovered with heroin, ecstasy and those types of drugs on them would have received an expiation fee and had to go to the diversion process as well; so both, not one or the other. That is what these amendments sought to do, and I believe in that strongly.

However, having said that, I am aware that the numbers do not exist in the chamber at this time to support these amendments. As members would be aware, I have tried to move similar amendments in the past and not been successful, so with that in mind I intend to withdraw these amendments and not waste the time of the chamber. However, I should say that they will be back in some amended form in the future: members can be certain of that.

Remaining clauses (6 and 7) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.