Legislative Council Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Bills Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offenders) Amendment Bill Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offenders) Amendment Bill Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offenders) Amendment Bill Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 26 March 2015.) The Hon. T.T. NGO Legislative Council The Hon. T.T. NGO (15:41): I rise to speak briefly on the Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offenders) Amendment Bill. Last year, this bill was passed by the Legislative Council with a few amendments but, before the amendments could be considered by the House of Assembly, parliament was prorogued. This year the bill has passed the House of Assembly with no amendment and it has reached the Legislative Council again. This bill aims to hinder repeat drug offenders and those who are convicted of commercial offences, including trafficking, selling or possessing with intent to sell, or cultivating with intention to sell, or believing another will sell a large commercial quantity or commercial quantity of a controlled substance or plant. The bill also aims to incapacitate those who sell or supply or administer a large commercial or commercial quantity of a controlled substance or plants in a school zone. Currently, only possessions that are directly linked to funds from these offences are confiscated. This bill seeks to further confiscate possessions to inhibit offenders from committing further drug offences. The aim is to leave offenders with virtually no resources to undertake these activities. Previously, opponents were concerned that the bill may not be constitutionally valid. This should no longer be a concern, as the High Court case of Emmerson v DPP upheld the validity of Northern Territory legislation, which is arguably harsher than this bill. The Northern Territory's legislation confiscates all the offender's property, whereas this bill allows the offender to keep personal items, including clothing. Despite elements of the opposition raising philosophical concerns about the appropriateness of confiscating assets at this level, last year they raised a new concern about which funds these assets will go into. I understand the Hon. Mr McLachlan has— The Hon. S.G. Wade Legislative Council The Hon. S.G. Wade: No, that concern is three years old. The Hon. T.T. NGO Legislative Council The Hon. T.T. NGO: He has only been here— The ACTING PRESIDENT Legislative Council Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order! The Hon. Mr Ngo has the floor. The Hon. T.T. NGO Legislative Council The Hon. T.T. NGO: The Hon. Mr McLachlan has again moved an amendment so that funds raised from these provisions to into the Victims of Crime Fund, rather than the proposed justice resources fund. I would like to think that this is a well-intentioned amendment as the main purpose of the Victims of Crime Fund is to provide statutory compensation to victims of certain crimes and their families in certain circumstances. I would like to again point out that this bill applies to assets that are not proceeds of drug crimes. Funds obtained from the confiscation of proceeds of crime will still go into the Victims of Crime Fund. It will not be losing money. The purpose of confiscating property above the actual proceeds from repeat and serious drug offenders is to make it more difficult for these serious offenders to commit further drug offences. The justice resources fund will provide money for court infrastructure services, justice programs and facilities to deal with drug and alcohol related crime. The Attorney-General has been clear that the justice resources fund is broader than the Victims of Crime Fund. By these assets going into the justice resources fund instead of the Victims of Crime Fund, it will allow the funding of initiatives that will benefit society at a broader level over time. As I have said before, I am sure that the majority of South Australians are more concerned about getting drugs off our streets instead of the property rights of drug offenders. The measures in this bill will apply to repeat drug offenders and those who commit certain commercial drug offences. These are serious offences that have serious consequences for our society. We should be doing all that we can to hinder those who commit these offences from committing them again. With that said, it is time that, hopefully, this bill will be passed a second time. The Hon. G.E. GAGO Legislative Council Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Business Services and Consumers The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Employment, Higher Education and Skills, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (15:47): I understand that all second reading contributions have been made and I thank those members who have indicated support for this bill. This bill is an election commitment. It is an important measure directed at those who are involved in drug trafficking and to bankrupt the 'Mr Bigs' of the drug trade. This bill has had a very long history and I will be brief in my concluding comments. I note that the Hon. John Darley in the debate has again raised the issue of cannabis oil for medical purposes. Without wishing to pre-empt the discussions at committee stage, I reiterate the government's position that the present bill is neither the time nor the place to debate the merits or otherwise of cannabis oil for medical testing. The Hon. Andrew McLachlan has also in debate raised certain issues and these issues will no doubt be discussed further at committee stage. Without wishing again to pre-empt the discussions at committee stage, I should note that the Attorney-General has recently written to the Hon. Andrew McLachlan to explain the government's position on these issues and to note that at least some of the issues raised by the Hon. Andrew McLachlan raise practical and constitutional implications and the A-G has reiterated that he is open to negotiation, notably as to where funds under the proposed Justice resources fund can be expended. The government looks forward to a bipartisan approach to see if agreement can finally be reached on this important bill to attack those who deal in drugs. I look forward to the committee stage. Bill read a second time.