Legislative Council Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Bills Controlled Substances (Destruction of Seized Property) Amendment Bill Controlled Substances (Destruction of Seized Property) Amendment Bill Controlled Substances (Destruction of Seized Property) Amendment Bill Introduction and First Reading Introduction and First Reading The Hon. K.J. MAHER Legislative Council Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Attorney-General Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (16:02): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Controlled Substances Act 1984. Read a first time. Second Reading Second Reading The Hon. K.J. MAHER Legislative Council Minister for Aboriginal Affairs Attorney-General Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (16:03): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to introduce the Controlled Substances (Destruction of Seized Property) Amendment Bill 2024. This bill amends the Controlled Substances Act to enable the Commissioner of Police to authorise the destruction of prescribed hydroponic equipment (PHE) seized under the act. PHE refers to the equipment prescribed under regulation 9(1)(a) of the Controlled Substances (Controlled Drugs, Precursors and Plants) Regulations 2014, being equipment that is, or may at some stage have been, capable of being used for hydroponic cannabis cultivation. Where a police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that an offence against the act has been committed, the officer may seize and remove from the premises anything the officer has reasonable cause to suspect affords evidence of the offence. PHE is often seized as evidence in relation to a charge of possessing or supplying prescribed equipment under section 33LA of the act. It may also be seized as evidence in relation to the prosecution of more serious offences such as cultivation and trafficking offences. Currently, the act requires seized PHE to be held pending proceedings for an offence against the act. The property value may only be destroyed once a court has ordered that it be forfeited to the Crown. The bill enables the Commissioner of Police to authorise the destruction of seized PHE prior to the finalisation of proceedings and without the need for the aforementioned court order. The bill also provides a mechanism for the Commissioner of Police to seek a court order to recover the reasonable costs of destruction of PHE from a person who was convicted of an offence in relation to the destroyed PHE. This may include the costs of collecting, transporting and dismantling the PHE as may be reasonably required for the purposes of destroying it. Schedule 1 of the bill contains transitional provisions. These make it clear that the Commissioner of Police may authorise the destruction of PHE in the commissioner's possession on or after the commencement of the bill, whether the equipment was seized before or after that commencement. The transitional provisions also clarify that the Commissioner of Police may only apply to the court for the recovery of the costs of the destruction of the PHE in relation to property seized after the commencement of the bill. The requirement to hold PHE is resource intensive for South Australia Police and has resulted in a large and expanding value of PHE being stored awaiting finalisation of proceedings. This bill is intended to alleviate this burden by enabling the Commissioner of Police to authorise the destruction of PHE where appropriate and in accordance with guidelines developed with the Director of Public Prosecutions. Retention of PHE is not necessary for the prosecution of an offence under the act. It is common and accepted practice to rely on secondary evidence of PHE such as photographs and video recordings during the prosecution of such offences. Further, given it is an offence to possess prescribed equipment without reasonable excuse, PHE would not ordinarily be returned to the person from whom it was seized. A key objective of this bill is to free up police resources so that rather than seizing and sitting on pallets upon pallets of PHE, police can be out on the beat, fighting crime and protecting the community. This government will do what we can to effect improvement so that South Australia Police can operate as a modern and efficient police force for South Australia. The 2022-23 Report on Government Services shows that South Australia Police has 238 operational sworn staff per 100,000 people, the most of any state and 8 per cent higher than the national average of 221, while satisfaction with services provided by SAPOL leads the country at 78.8 per cent, compared with the national average of 73.9 per cent. This comes off the back of the recent South Australian state budget, in which the government committed more than $12 million to an accelerated police recruitment course to hire 900 new officers over three years and an additional 189 police security officers. I commend the bill to the chamber and seek leave to insert the explanation of causes without my reading it. Leave granted. Explanation Explanation of Clauses Part 1—Preliminary 1—Short title This clause is formal. Part 2—Amendment of Controlled Substances Act 1984 2—Amendment of section 52E—Seized property and forfeiture This clause provides for destruction of prescribed equipment for the purposes of section 33LA that is, or may at some stage have been, capable of being used for hydroponic cannabis cultivation and also clarifies the power to recover costs of destruction from convicted persons. Schedule 1—Transitional provision 1—Equipment seized prior to commencement The amendment allowing destruction of prescribed equipment applies to any such equipment in the possession of the Commissioner of Police on or after the commencement of the measure (whether the equipment was seized before or after that commencement) but the ability to recover the costs of destruction only applies to such equipment seized after that commencement. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. L.A. Henderson.