Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Statutes Amendment (Criminal Intelligence) Bill STATUTES AMENDMENT (CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE) BILL Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion). The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN Legislative Council The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (16:10): I thank honourable members for their contributions on this bill. What the government is trying to do with this piece of legislation is relatively straightforward. It is to ensure that the police are able to use maximum powers in accordance, as much as possible, with the decision of the High Court in K-Generation, in particular. That is the aim of the bill, and the reason we wish to deal with it expeditiously. The Hon. Mr Wade indicated a number of amendments. He has now filed a different set of amendments, but they are quite similar. South Australia Police has very clearly advised the government that it believes the amendments, in particular regarding the definition and scope of criminal intelligence, would make the bill unworkable, would severely compromise the ability of police to do their job and limit the scope of the criminal intelligence provisions. As I said, the Hon. Mr Wade has filed revised amendments which, instead of inserting a definition of criminal organisations, relate to two or more people involved in criminal activity. The advice we have received from SA Police and from those involved in prosecuting serious and organised crime, in particular, and more generally crime across the board, is that the revised amendments are not acceptable, and the government is adamant that it will oppose those amendments. Those amendments still significantly limit the scope of the criminal intelligence provisions and, rather than the existing definition of criminal intelligence, which the opposition wants to do away with but which captures all these criminals, it would instead narrow the scope. Obviously we will deal with it in more detail in the committee stage; however, the government is firmly of the view that the amendments proposed by the Hon. Mr Wade would make the job of South Australia Police a lot harder, make these provisions unworkable and limit the ability of the police to do their job. Obviously it is very important to ensure that, as much as possible, the criminal intelligence provisions are in accordance with the decisions of the High Court. The government has carefully considered the constitutional issues that the High Court raised in the K-Generation case, in particular, and wants to ensure that its provisions are consistent with that decision and thus, as much as we can be confident of it, be constitutionally valid. The government opposes the amendments to be moved by the Hon. Mr Wade, particularly in regard to the definition and scope of criminal intelligence. It believes they would impose an intolerable restriction on and limit the scope of the bill, and prevent police from being able to do their job. We really want to get this bill dealt with expeditiously and on the statute so that whatever work the police are able to do, using the provisions of this bill, will not be under a potential constitutional threat inasmuch as that can be provided for. Obviously, a number of pieces of legislation are being reviewed in light of the Totani decision. So, this issue most likely will be revisited next year, but in the interim we would not want police operations to be compromised by either keeping in place a provision which is not as constitutionally sound as it could be or by substituting the Liberal amendments, to be moved by the Hon. Mr Wade, which would significantly limit the scope of these criminal intelligence provisions and hinder the ability of the police to do their job in tackling crime. However, we will deal with those issues in more detail in the committee stage. I thank honourable members for their contributions, and I commend the bill to the house. Bill read a second time.