CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES (OFFENCES) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 October 2013.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (15:51): I rise on behalf of Liberal members to indicate support for the second reading of the legislation. The member for Morphett has had carriage of the legislation and indicated the party's support in the House of Assembly debate. In brief, this legislation has come about as a result of the increasing number of synthetic drugs being produced that mimic what can be considered normally available illicit drugs, such as amphetamines.

This bill proposed by the government introduces a number of offences that control the intentional manufacturing of drug alternatives, control the promoting of a controlled drug alternative, and allows for police officers to restrict the activities of people who are found to be selling or promoting these synthetic drugs.

The member for Morphett has advised that under the bill the Attorney-General has the power to declare a substance to be an interim controlled drug, and that can be declared in the Gazette. That interim notice will operate for a period of not more than 12 months, and it is not necessary to have an organic chemical make-up of that drug; it can be identified by its trade name or in any other manner that is found to be suitable. Once a substance has been declared an interim controlled drug, the substance is treated in the same way as a controlled drug. For the reasons outlined by the member for Morphett in another place, the Liberal Party supports the second reading of the legislation.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:53): It is a sad reflection on modern society that there seems to be an insatiable demand for illicit drugs that are known to cause harm—known, well studied and proven. In the past, illicit drugs gained an appearance of being fashionable at some stage because some rock stars and film stars were known to use them, and they often openly admitted to doing so in media interviews; some even recorded songs promoting cocaine, heroin, marijuana and the like.

More recently, the mood has changed somewhat, as data has become increasingly available that shows that these substances are increasingly proven to be harmful. Indeed, Eric Clapton now refuses to perform the song Cocaine, as I understand. On the odd occasion that he has performed it, he has added words that suggest it is actually an antidrug message these days. We have other examples in our society, of course: the AFL is a notable organisation, as well as many other sporting codes that now have official policies that strongly oppose not only performance enhancing drugs but, specifically, illicit drugs.

Despite this change, the demand for drugs in our society is strong and possibly increasing, and more and more we see people—especially young people—who are resorting to illicit drugs. Modern drugs are much more potent than those available in past decades in many cases. Clearly, it is necessary for authorities to give a clear and firm anti-drug message at every opportunity and, hence, this bill.

One particularly important message that should be emphasised to the public is that those who manufacture these chemical cocktails are not pharmacists who have the interests of consumers or patients at heart. Indeed, they are people who probably have little or no pharmaceutical knowledge and are certainly not interested in or concerned at all about the welfare of those who happen to take or use the drugs that they manufacture.

The demand for illicit drugs, especially by younger groups in our community, has resulted in more suppliers entering the market and manufacturers becoming more innovative in their endeavours to avoid police detection and prosecution. Part of the strategy has been to produce products that are not strictly illegal whilst being chemically similar to illegal drugs. The differences are such that they are not within the definition of 'controlled substances' as defined by the law and are, therefore, strictly speaking, not illegal, although the impact of them can be quite similar, obviously.

These chemicals can have unpredictable effects on the human mind and body. Indeed, they can have lethal effects on the human mind and body. We have all seen media reports about some people who have taken these drugs. One that concerned me, in particular, was the story of a Sydney high school student, reported in June this year, who took a synthetic drug that mimicked the effects of LSD. It was said that the drug purchased by this individual could be purchased over the internet for as little as $1.50. As a consequence of taking the drug, this individual jumped to his death from a balcony at his home, despite his mother and sister trying to stop him repeatedly.

That case clearly illustrates the need for strong legislation to combat the trade and manufacture of drugs that try to emulate what you might call the 'normal' drugs that we have known to date. We can only speculate about the extent of the long-term harm that is being done to those who take any of these varieties of drugs that are now so readily available. This bill provides machinery to combat that trade.

First, the Attorney-General can declare a substance to be an interim controlled drug and, thus, illegal. This is a simple process that does not require new regulations as such. Secondly, separate new offences are created of manufacturing and promoting any drug that has a similar effect to that of a controlled drug. A drug manufacturer does not have to be declared for this offence to occur; that is, they do not need to be specifically named.

Thirdly, the definition of the word 'manufacture' is strengthened so that it captures any person involved in the drug manufacturing process at any stage. Fourthly, a procedure is prescribed whereby a police officer may give notice to a person warning him or her not to manufacture, package or sell a particular drug. A breach of that warning is an offence under this bill.

Fifthly, a person is convicted of committing one or more of certain drug offences in the course of business. If they are convicted of that, the bill gives power to the court to prohibit the person so convicted from engaging in specified conduct or from carrying on a specified business or specified kind of businesses. It is clear that all of the changes proposed by this bill are beneficial to our community, and they have the full support of Family First.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (15:58): I would like to thank members for their contributions to the debate on this bill and also their indications of support. This bill is designed to tackle synthetic drugs in our community. Under the current provisions of the Controlled Substances Act, the process of adding newly discovered harmful substances to the list of controlled drugs can be a lengthy one. There are also no provisions to prevent persons marketing potentially unsafe products as legal alternatives to illicit drugs. This is going to change.

This reform tackles the issue of synthetic drugs from a different angle than current laws. First, the Attorney-General will be able to act quickly, acting upon specialist advice such as the advice of police, Forensic Science SA and the Department for Health. The Attorney-General will be able to declare a new substance to be an interim controlled drug provided he or she is of the opinion the substance may be of exceptional danger to humans. This declaration can be made very quickly by a notice in the Gazette. Once a substance is declared to be an interim controlled drug, most of the provisions of the Controlled Substances Act will apply to that substance as if it were already a controlled drug.

Secondly, the bill creates a number of new offences that will target the way new synthetic drugs are manufactured, marketed and sold. The bill makes it an offence to manufacture, sell or market any substance as a legal alternative to an illicit drug. New powers given to a court to close down businesses also provide great disincentives to any shop owners and businesses who demonstrate a disregard for people's safety by profiting from the sale of new and untested substances that could be deadly.

Overall, these combined measures tackle the problem of synthetic drugs head on and provide the comprehensive multifaceted approach that is needed for this problem. With the passage of the bill, the government is sending a very clear message to the community that we are prepared to take whatever steps are necessary to tackle this problem to protect the community, in particular our young people, and I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 9 passed.

New clause 9A.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [AgriFoodFish–1]—

Page 6, after line 23—After clause 9 insert:

9A—Amendment of section 56—Permits for research etc

Section 56(1)—delete 'poison, controlled drug, controlled precursor, controlled plant, medicine' and substitute 'substance'

This amendment replaces the words 'poison, controlled drug, controlled precursor, controlled plant, medicine' with the word 'substance' in section 56. This amendment assures that a researcher who wants to manufacture a substance that has pharmacological effects similar to those of a controlled drug is able to do so in accordance with a permit.

The bill highlighted an existing inconsistency between section 31(1)(ag) and section 56. Section 31(1)(ag) provides an exemption to the offence provisions including the new offences being inserted by the bill in cases where a person is manufacturing, selling, supplying, administering or possessing a substance in accordance with the permit issued by the minister. However, under section 56 the permit can only be issued in regard to a substance that is a controlled drug, plant, precursor or a poison. Other substances are not covered, therefore section 56 had to be amended so that the minister can issue permits in regard to a substance that might be caught by new offences being inserted by the bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The member for Morphett advises that the Liberal Party will be supporting the amendment.

New clause inserted.

Clause 10.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I move:

Amendment No 2 [AgriFoodFish–1]—

Page 6, line 25—Delete 'or medical device'

Amendment No 3 [AgriFoodFish–1]—

Page 6, line 27—Delete 'or device'

These amendments are to correct a drafting error. The bill makes amendments to section 63 and the second amendment as drafted where the word 'medical device' was replaced with the word 'device'. That change is not necessary. The term 'medical device' is defined in the act and there is no need to disturb this reference.

In terms of the amendment No. 3, the bill makes amendments to section 63. Again it is the same thing—'medical device' which is defined in the act.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The member for Morphett advises that the Liberal Party will be supporting the amendments.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (16:05): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.