Controlled Substances (Destruction of Seized Property) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 8 February 2024.)

The Hon. R.B. MARTIN (17:06): I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to the Controlled Substances (Destruction of Seized Property) Amendment Bill 2024. This bill proposes amendments to the Controlled Substances Act that aim to enable the Commissioner of Police to authorise the destruction of prescribed hydroponic equipment, that is, equipment that is able to be used, or may have been able to be used at some stage, for hydroponic cannabis cultivation that has been seized by police.

Where a police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that an offence against the act has been committed, officers may seize and remove from the premises any equipment that they have reasonable cause to suspect affords evidence of the offence. Once equipment has been seized by police under such circumstances, the current provisions of the Controlled Substances Act require any prescribed hydroponic equipment to be held pending the outcome of court proceedings in relation to the relevant offence. Equipment may then be destroyed only upon an order of the court for forfeiture of the items to the Crown.

This bill provides for the Commissioner of Police to be empowered to authorise the destruction of seized equipment prior to the finalisation of proceedings and without the requirement for a court order to that effect. Court proceedings do not require prescribed hydroponic equipment to be brought to the court and tendered as evidence. It is a typical practice that secondary evidence, such as photographic and video evidence of a hydroponic set-up, is relied upon and is considered sufficient.

This bill intends that once photo and video evidence of the seized equipment has been captured, there will be no further need for the equipment to be retained. Such equipment is generally not returned to the person from whom it was seized in any event given that, without reasonable excuse, it is an offence to be in possession of prescribed equipment. This bill also establishes a mechanism for the Commissioner of Police to seek a court order to recover reasonable destruction costs from a person who is convicted of an offence in relation to the equipment.

The current retention scheme is burdensome for SAPOL in the areas of cost, storage space and labour. The Malinauskas Labor government are committed to availing themselves of every possible avenue to ensure that our police force is enabled to operate as efficiently as it can. This bill will support the improvement and the streamlining of processes in relation to dealing with seized equipment. It puts forward sensible and straightforward reforms that are in the public interest. The more police resources that are not dedicated to babysitting seized hydroponic equipment, the more resources can be dedicated to the core tasks of policing that keep our community safe.

The Malinauskas Labor government knows how crucial good policing is to our community, and we know that something our police service wants and needs is more personnel on the frontline. We are acting to advance that priority by committing $81 million to recruit an additional 189 sworn police security officers in the 2023 budget; funding a $12.2 million accelerated police recruitment package to enable 300 recruits to train at the Police Academy each year for the next three years; restarting overseas recruitment to recruit up to 200 experienced officers, targeting New Zealand, the UK and Ireland; and creating the Pathway to Policing Program to inspire year 11 and 12 students to consider policing as a career.

We are proud that South Australia has the most police officers per capita of all Australian states and we aim to further improve on that figure. We recognise how important it is for government to advance reforms that lead to improved operational outcomes for our police service, because that leads to better outcomes for our community.

Our intention is that the measures contained in this bill will lead to welcome improvements towards facilitating more efficient processes and lower resource demands in relation to seized prescribed hydroponic equipment. I am pleased to commend the bill to the chamber.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (17:10): I rise to indicate the Liberal Party's support for this legislation, which has been introduced to provide for greater efficiency in relation to authorising the destruction of seized prescribed hydroponics equipment before the conclusion of court proceedings—so quite specifically contained to that particular class of equipment—which will alleviate the significant storage burden on police resources, particularly given that some court cases can take some time to proceed through to a conviction. This clearly assists in reallocating those resources towards more frontline policing and community safety.

This bill introduces a provision for the recovery of reasonable costs associated with the destruction of prescribed hydroponics equipment (PHE) from convicted individuals, which will assist in offsetting the financial impact, and also introduces a punitive measure which potentially could serve as a deterrent against the cultivation and trafficking of controlled substances.

The inclusion of measures for cost recovery without a court order align with existing legal frameworks that prioritise public safety. I understand there have been concerns raised about the transparency of the cost-recovery process, and there are amendments before the house that will be considered in due course. We will put our position on those particular amendments in due course.

This legislation supports SAPOL's continued efficiency in terms of improving logistics. I note that the Law Society has written to the Attorney-General in relation to this. It is broadly supportive of the bill but, I quote from the letter, 'notes some concern as to a convicted person being required to meet these costs given the difficulty in ascertaining whether the costs incurred are indeed reasonable'. I look forward to the Attorney responding to those particular concerns expressed by the Law Society.

In terms of the technicalities of the clauses, the bill extends the powers of the Commissioner of Police to destroy seized property, which will now include PHE capable of being used for hydroponic cannabis cultivation. Clause 2(2) exempts PHE from being subject to the ordinary evidentiary provisions, which require that samples are taken of any seized property to be destroyed and the defendant be given an opportunity to have a portion of the sample analysed by an analyst.

As I have already mentioned, the Commissioner of Police, or a delegated person within SAPOL, would have power to collect reasonable costs from a convicted person. With those comments, I indicate support for the bill and look forward to the committee stage of the debate.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (17:14): I rise on behalf of the government to speak in support of this bill. We have spoken in this chamber before on legislation that is burdensome and in need of amendment. This is the case with the Controlled Substances Act.

Currently, the act requires that the hydroponic equipment that has been seized by police in circumstances where they have reasonable grounds to suspect an offence has been committed is stored by SAPOL. Police hold the goods pending court proceedings for the relevant offence, such as the equipment being used for hydroponic cannabis cultivation. It can then only be destroyed upon an order of the court for forfeiture.

It is pertinent to note that in reality these court proceedings do not require the confiscated hydroponic equipment to be tendered as evidence. The common practice involves presenting secondary evidence, such as photo and video evidence of a hydroponic set-up, which is relied upon in court proceedings. The bill before the chamber will enable the Commissioner of Police to authorise the destruction of seized equipment prior to the finalisation of proceedings and without the need for a court order. This is about efficiency—the current retention scheme puts an unnecessary burden on SAPOL.

The fact that video and photo evidence is what is presented in the court, the storage space, labour and cost clearly indicate that retaining the seized equipment is grossly inefficient. Importantly, this bill also establishes a mechanism for the Commissioner of Police to seek a court order to recover the reasonable destruction costs from the person who is convicted of the offence in relation to the equipment.

The Malinauskas Labor government knows that an efficient police force enhances public safety and fosters community trust through effective response measures, and I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.