CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES (OFFENCES RELATING TO INSTRUCTIONS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 22 June 2011.)

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (12:41): I wish to place very briefly on the record some of my concerns around this bill, although I am likely to support it. I would like to start by thanking the Hon. Ann Bressington for her contribution the other day and to say that I largely agree with her sentiments.

The Hon. A. Bressington: Hear, hear!

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I understand that the government has presented this bill under the guise of being tough on drugs and in closing loopholes in the existing legislation, but as the Hon. Ms Bressington and the Hon. Mr Wade have pointed out, there are questions around exactly what loopholes they are talking about. The clarifications which have been made around the selling, supply and possession of instructions for drug manufacture are, in my opinion, mostly redundant.

These amendments give lip service to the reality that the internet makes instructions for drug cultivation and manufacture readily available but does not really address this issue because, as we all know, the law does not have the power to hold anyone outside its jurisdiction accountable and much of the instructions offered on the internet are offered by international sources or sources that are untraceable.

It seems to me that there is a small amount of value in this bill in terms of the amendments made by the opposition in the lower house, particularly in terms of clarifications relating to the supply of precursors, so I would like to acknowledge the opposition's efforts in this area. Beyond that provision, this bill represents for me another sad indicator of our government's unwillingness to understand the realities about drugs in South Australia. It refuses to consider what policies might lead to the prevention of drug addiction. It is uninterested in solutions which might require a move away from the silo mentality currently adopted by departments and it is unreceptive to the idea of harm minimisation.

Effectively, when it comes to drug policy, this government is living in the mid-1980s. Perhaps it is time to step into the time capsule and read some of the research around drug dependency that has been conducted in the last 20-odd years. Then maybe we can pursue some more sensible policies which are not just based around increasing and spreading punitive measures. That kind of legislation would be something that I could support with some enthusiasm. Instead, we have this current bill which will get my vote, but that is mostly because it seems to me that generally there is no harm in providing consistency across acts. I look forward to the opportunity to sink my teeth into some real drug legislation in the future.

The Hon. A. Bressington: Good luck.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Let me have hope.

The Hon. A. Bressington: I have been hoping for ages.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I am young, Ann. I am not dead yet; we have time. Let that be a lesson to you over there.

The PRESIDENT: Has the Hon. Ms Vincent now finished?

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I had finished, but then the honourable member started laughing at me. I have the right to defend myself, sir.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Hood.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (12:45): I rise to indicate Family First's support for the second reading. This bill makes it an offence to sell a document containing instructions for the manufacture of a controlled drug or the cultivation of a controlled plant. It is also an offence to have in one's possession a document containing instructions for the manufacture of a controlled drug or the cultivation of a controlled plant, intending to sell it. The prescribed penalty is a maximum of $10,000 or imprisonment for three years, or both. There is also a new offence of supplying instructions (that is, without remuneration), which carries a similar $10,000 maximum fine but a lower two-year period of imprisonment, or both.

Although not mentioned in the minister's second reading contribution, the bill also significantly amends provisions relating to the sale and manufacture of controlled precursors. I understand that drugs such as pseudoephedrine are considered precursors in that they are used as the active ingredient in methamphetamines and similar substances. A person who sells a large commercial quantity of a controlled precursor, or has possession of a large commercial quantity of a controlled precursor for sale, now faces a maximum penalty of $200,000 or imprisonment for 25 years, or both.

For commercial quantities, the figure is $75,000 or imprisonment for 15 years, or both. A simple sale offence attracts $50,000 or imprisonment for 10 years, or both. There are also separate possession and supply offences, which usually now attract maximum penalties of $10,000 or imprisonment for three years, or both. These penalty increases are welcomed by Family First. At the last election, the Labor Party launched its community safety policy with a promise that stated:

South Australia's drug paraphernalia laws will be amended to restrict the availability of material which informs people on how to cultivate or manufacture drugs. By making it an offence to possess such material, it will close the current loophole identified in the existing law. By banning the possession of such material, the proposal will restrict the sale and production of publications that inform people how to grow, cultivate or make illegal drugs. The possession of the material will be an offence under the Controlled Substances Act 1984 section 33LA.

In principle, that is a statement that Family First supports.

It has been said that there is already some scope under section 33LA to ban instructions relating to the manufacture of drugs (in fact, I think that particular issue has been raised by a number of members in this debate). This is perhaps because the words 'prescribed equipment' are defined to include, 'a document containing instructions for the manufacture of a controlled drug or the cultivation of a controlled plant.'

The Hon. Ms Bressington suggested that the government already has the necessary legislation in place and that it made 'an election promise purporting to address a non-existent loophole'. She has a point, and I certainly welcome the fact that we have somebody in this chamber who has personal experience in these areas and is able to put forward an informed opinion, if you like. Going back to the promise the government made, whether or not this particular election promise could have been better considered, from Family First's perspective, the overall intent is important and significant.

I completely agree, however, with the Hon. Ann Bressington's comments that this offence may be rarely prosecuted. It is, for example, true that all kinds of drug instruction one could imagine are already readily available somewhere in a dark corner of the internet. That does not mean we should not still send the message that the distribution of such material is still legally and morally wrong, and that is what I think the main point of this bill really is. Indeed, I think we are obliged to send that message as often and as loud as we can. For that reason, I indicate Family First's support for the second reading of this bill and our general support for the thrust of the bill, subject to the detail in the committee stage, of course.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Public Sector Management, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for Gambling) (12:50): I thank members for their second reading contributions to this important piece of legislation and I look forward to its being dealt with expeditiously through the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Bill taken through committee without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Public Sector Management, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for Gambling) (12:52): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.