HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-07-22 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES (DRUG DETECTION POWERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 17 June 2008. Page 3747.)

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (11:55): I was not expecting to get to this before lunch so I do not have my notes, but I think I know this matter well enough to proceed without them. The bill concerns three wonderful little pooches by the names of Molly, Hooch and Jay. Those are the dogs that, some considerable time ago, the government trained to undertake drug detection work—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mrs REDMOND: The Attorney says, 'Don't worry; they've been gainfully employed.' Well, I do have a question as to whether that is indeed the case because an assertion was made, in the other place, that they were sometimes employed on what was, basically, federal work at the airport, doing their passive drug detection alert manoeuvres.

When I read the debate that has already occurred in the other place in relation to this bill, I was interested to see that the Hon. Rob Lucas raised with the minister the fact that, since at least the middle of 2006, the opposition has been alerting the government to the fact that it would be necessary to amend its legislation to enable the dogs to be used for the purpose for which they have been trained. Of course, there are not only the three dogs; if you have three dogs you also have three handlers for the dogs and, just as the dogs have to be trained, the handlers also have to be trained.

I have not had the pleasure of meeting Molly, Hooch and Jay but I did have the pleasure of seeing the Defence Force dogs when I went on Operation Executive Stretch around five years ago in 2003 and spent a weekend with the Defence Reserves at the facility north of Salisbury. It was fascinating and I had a fantastic time, and I commend to the council the benefits of the Defence Reserves—and, indeed, the benefits of employing reservists who, through their involvement, learn to think laterally and do all sorts of things. Part of what they wanted to teach us about the Defence Reserves that weekend was that people who are in the Reserves are not simply there because they are gung ho, gun-mad people who want to go out and play 'bang bang, shoot 'em up' on the weekends: they actually learn a whole lot of things.

We did do some shooting—and my secretary has been very compliant ever since I got 10 bullseyes and she barely hit the target when we got to fire a standard assault rifle—and it was great fun. We also did the commando course, which was fantastic; we did abseiling, which was a bit unnerving but also fantastic; and we also tried scuba diving, which is something I had always wanted to do. However, we also saw these dogs, and it is simply amazing to see them in action.

The dogs are trained to do all sorts of specialist tasks and, in the case of these dogs, are trained as passive alert dogs to be involved in drug detection. The idea is that they will be able to walk along the queues of people lining up to go into a nightclub, for instance, and quietly sit down beside someone on whom they detect the presence of an odour that gives rise to the suspicion that there may be an illicit substance present. That would then give the relevant officers reasonable cause to search the person to determine whether there was something present.

I believe we raised, in the upper house, issues relating to just how we deal with some of the situations that might arise with this legislation, because it specifically allows these dogs to sniff in and around vehicles. We began then to think about how it would work in practical terms. For instance, with a B-double, much as I think these dogs are terrific, I suspect that the dog is likely to be unable to sense a scent—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mrs REDMOND: —from the ground up to the cabin or, indeed, to the back of the cabin. I think that the Hon. David Ridgway in the other place raised some questions about using the sorts of wands that are sometimes used. We are all accustomed to having wands passed over us at the airport, and some can apparently detect drugs and so on in some circumstances. So, it seemed to us that there may be the potential to combine the use of a wand with the dogs, because getting a dog up into the cabin of a B-double, or having a dog clambering around within a vehicle, might make their use reasonably difficult in those sorts of situations.

Nevertheless, the primary use of these dogs will be in situations where they might wander through Rundle Mall or to various licensed premises of an evening where young people are queuing to get in. I have never queued up to get into premises, but maybe I am just—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Never?

Mrs REDMOND: Not drinking premises because, as the Attorney knows, I am a teetotaller, so I do not spend very much time going into nightclubs. The use of these dogs in circumstances such as queues outside nightclubs promises to be a useful tool for the detection of illicit drugs. It surprises me, however, that the government has taken until now to decide that this legislation is urgent. I was told that its highest priority this week was to get this legislation passed. I suspect that the priority of all these bills I have to deal with today is largely because, as I read in The Australian, the Attorney is off to SCAG in Wellington—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: In Christchurch.

Mrs REDMOND: —in Christchurch—and therefore he wants all his business off the Notice Paper so that he can get away; hence, the reason for the urgency has little to do with actual urgency, given, as I said, that this government has known for at least two years that it needed to amend the legislation to enable these dogs to do their work.

When the Attorney replies to this contribution, I will be interested to hear exactly how these dogs have been used. I would like to know (and perhaps I will put in an FOI) the cost of the continual training of the dogs and their handlers, because you cannot just train dogs and then leave them for a couple of years: you have to keep up their work so that they keep abreast of what they are supposed to do. What has been the cost of the delay in introducing this legislation which, as I said, has been at least two years in the making?

By October 2006, the Hon. Rob Lucas was asking the minister about when the government would be introducing legislation. As I said, it surprises me that it is suddenly on the urgent list for this week. However, I welcome the legislation because it is only appropriate that, having trained these three pooches to do this work, and having also had their handlers trained to do the work with them, we actually put the facility in place, through the legislation, to enable them to do it.

As I said, I welcome the legislation. I wish the Attorney-General bon voyage as he leaves our almost sunny but quite chilly shores for somewhere even colder. I can assure the Attorney that, having been to New Zealand myself in July last year, it is at times a chilly place in the middle of winter. However if, like me, he is working very hard for the whole time he is over there, then the Attorney will not care what the climate might throw at him over there, and I have no doubt that he and his fellow attorneys in Christchurch will cover important matters in their deliberations over there.

I wish him bon voyage, and I am pleased that we are, at last, attending to a matter that the Liberal opposition has been asking to be attended to for some two years now. This piece of legislation has already been through the Legislative Council, and I hope that if it passes here this week, we will in fact have the appropriate legislation to enable these drug detection passive alert sniffer dogs to undertake the work for which they have been trained.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (12:06): I, too, am pleased to speak in support of the legislation. As the member for Heysen has quite accurately outlined in her contribution to the house, this bill has been a long time coming. It is my understanding that the South Australia Police (SAPOL) has trained three passive alert drug detection (PADD) dogs. These dogs are specifically trained to detect odours from drugs such as heroin, amphetamines, cannabis and cocaine.

We all know the continual war—the continual battle—that the whole community has against illicit drugs. It is the scourge of modern society, and we certainly support any measures that seek to bring those people who are involved in criminal activity concerning illicit drugs to justice. In relation to training these dogs, SAPOL has requested that appropriate amendments be made to the Controlled Substances Act to facilitate the use of these dogs as part of their strategy to deal with drug-related crime.

The Controlled Substances Act 1984 presents some ambiguity as to the extent to which police can carry out people-screening operations using the PADD dogs. This has necessitated a change to the act in order that the dogs may be used for general drug detection without constituting a search, which is already legislated for in the Controlled Substances Act and the Summary Offences Act.

As you can see, this piece of legislation, as do many bills that we debate in this house, has relevance to other legislation as well. This bill also proposes specific powers to tackle incidents of illegal drugs being transported interstate and along major transit routes. Again, we are certainly aware of the ever-increasing trafficking of drugs into the country. We see media reports on a fairly regular basis of Customs, the Australian Federal Police and local state police in the drug hauls that they confiscate. As I said earlier, it is extremely important that we provide our police force and those other law enforcement agencies with all the powers that they can use to stem this scourge on our society.

The bill aims to erase any ambiguity about the use of PADD dogs. At present, it is necessary to have reasonable suspicion regarding an individual or place before a search can be authorised, but this bill aims to ensure a sound legal basis for use of these dogs through the establishment of general and special drug detection powers. PADD dogs will be able to be used in two types of areas: the first is in the general drug detection area, where the search would be carried out in licensed premises with the exception of restaurants. PADD dogs would inspect and carry out patrols inside and where patrons attempt to enter or leave the premises—for example, walking along a queue of people waiting to enter a nightclub. In addition, they may be used to inspect car parks which are in direct conjunction with a licensed premises. The second area where the dogs are able to be used is in the area of general drug detection where dogs would be used on public transport and in public places such as the Fringe Festival, sporting, and other community and public events.

I am not sure how much time I have to speak on this. I might look to eclipse the member for Davenport's contribution when he spoke on the natural resources management bill. I think he spoke for over seven hours in making his outstanding contribution. We have 15 minutes to go but I do not intend to take all that time. As the member for Heysen, the shadow attorney-general, pointed out this is an issue that was raised back in October 2006 by the Hon. Rob Lucas in the other place. He made quite an extensive contribution to that place in April this year, as upper house members are able to do.

The Hon. Rob Lucas pointed this out almost two years ago, yet we are here this morning basically rushing this legislation through. Why are we rushing it through? Because at the end of this sitting week we go on our winter recess and, as the Attorney-General himself has pointed out, he is going on vacation to the snowfields in New Zealand to enjoy himself, so that seems to be the reason we are rushing it through this morning and this week. He might send a postcard from the snowfields in New Zealand to his electorate just as I understand he orchestrated in the 1997 election where he and his cronies sent a postcard out to the then member for Wright, from memory.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: No, the member for Florey.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: The member for Florey—I beg your pardon. It is very good that we have the Attorney-General to give some accuracy in the arguably devious machinations of the politicking that the Attorney-General undertakes. I understand that the previous member for Florey has gone on to live a full, pleasurable and healthy life on the Eyre Peninsula.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: On the outside, as the member for Heysen accurately describes. I could go on at some length in relation to the legislation, but it is a good move. Once again, it highlights the tardiness of this government in bringing these important matters to the house. We have to be thankful for small mercies; that they do eventually get around to these issues. I wish the Attorney-General the very best on his skiing holiday.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Davenport.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (12:15): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: My commiserations. It was a very good second.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: It was a very good second; thank you, Attorney. I wish to make some comments in relation to one question relating to this bill. What is the government's explanation for delaying for two years the implementation of this matter? For two years the opposition, through Rob Lucas in another place, has been raising the issue that the dogs are trained but cannot operate legally without legislation—and the government in another place accepted that argument. So for two years the government has spent these resources on training these dogs and the officers concerned have been, essentially, sitting idle and not being used to full capacity because of the government's inaction.

This is not a complicated bill. It is not a hard bill: it is a very simple bill. It simply gives legal framework to the use of sniffer dogs in certain circumstances, as eloquently outlined by the member for Kavel. So, why the delay of two years? In my view, it is just a matter of ministerial laziness.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: We wanted to introduce the dogs to Troy Buswell.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: You wanted to introduce the dogs—well, there you go. It just seems to me that the ministry has been more focused on playing games (as illustrated by the Attorney's interjection) rather than actually dealing with the issue. These days in this place, we go home at 4.30, 5.30 or 6 o'clock. The reality is that this bill could have been dealt with on any day in the past two years. It has not been.

Society's safety has been undermined as a result of the inaction of the Attorney and the ministry. I seek an explanation from the Attorney as to why there has been such a lack of focus on this bill, given that it was publicly debated and brought to the attention of the parliament by the Hon. Rob Lucas in another place.

Another example of the government's lack of interest in the whole law and order area is that the power to ban legislation will not be debated this week. That legislation will not be dealt with for another six weeks. This is another example of the government talking tough on law and order and not acting very quickly at all. I seek an explanation for the delay.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:18): I, too, rise to make a contribution to this bill. I wish Molly, Jay and Hooch all the best in their endeavours. It could not be more timely when we have anecdotal evidence of the scourge of drugs throughout the state, throughout our urban areas and farther out into the countryside.

An acquaintance of mine has messed up his life over the use of drugs. It is a good lesson for anyone (a young child going to school or anyone) who thinks that it is fine to dabble in substance abuse to see what it can do to a person.

I am not a medical practitioner but I do not think all the medical studies have been done that may need to be done as to the things that can potentially happen to people. I do know that a lot of studies have been organised over time. I believe that drugs have ruined lives and have the potential to ruin many more lives. I call upon the community to make wise decisions. The pace of life seems to become faster every day and people are looking for different ways to find relaxation or a so-called buzz, but they really need to be aware of the consequences.

I note that dogs and electronic detection agents can be used in all sorts of places, including licensed premises, passenger vehicles and public carriers, and there could be an issue when using detection dogs in sleeper cabins of trucks, etc. We would like to see what the reality of the situation will be there and whether only electronic devices will be used. Obviously, they will be a bit like random breath testing stations, as this bill gives the right for drug detection stations to be set up. When used in the transport industry, which in effect does carry this country, I hope that inspections are done in a timely manner, because freight companies and drivers are always under pressure to get to the other end of the trip.

Another concern I have is to see if these dogs can be used in country areas where some of the marijuana is grown. Dare I say that the sands of the Mallee are very good marijuana-growing country—so I am told.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You don't see too much on the Yorke Peninsula.

Mr PEDERICK: No. The Yorke Peninsula, I believe, is land that is too good; it is the barley growing capital of the world. I do not think they would have too many spare acres to grow any marijuana over there. However, I digress. I do know people who have had several drug crops found on their properties. You can always pick it up when an SA Water pipeline is accessed or a farmer's pipeline. Some people have very intricate watering facility set-ups.

Sometimes I wish the police were perhaps a bit smarter on the job and cornered some of these people when they have had notice. Marijuana growers are very keen to protect their crops because they could be worth several million dollars. These matters should be actioned immediately once someone is aware of what is going on. I know that the police do a lot of great work in staking out some of these patches but I think more could be done. With those few words, I commend the use of the three detector dogs and support the bill.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:23): I rise to support this bill. I ask the question that the member for Davenport has just asked: why has it taken so long for us to address this matter? We all support the fantastic service these drug detection dogs provide. We also have great respect and admiration for the handlers who husband and train these PADD dogs. I was not aware of the anomaly which required legislation such as this to allow them to operate legally. If, by not legislating, that has impeded the job that these dogs do, I think it is a disgrace.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Everyone (including MPs) sees these dogs when they are travelling. I think the general public enjoys seeing them, as long as the dogs do not stand by one's luggage for too long! The bill does contain stronger powers to intervene in the trafficking of drugs, and I certainly welcome that. I have been on this bandwagon for 10 years. I had a long discussion with the Hon. Michael Elliott in another place where he alluded to a visit to the Scandinavian countries and he was all enthused about how you can live with these drugs, and I was very upset. I have been proven to be correct and he, and in particular the Democrats, has certainly been caught out in this matter of allowing the legal cultivation of cannabis. I have always been opposed to it.

So, here we are, and we have the drug detection dogs doing a fantastic job. The dogs are mainly beagles and, as I said, they are very popular with the travelling public, unless they spend a long time alongside your luggage. It is reassuring to us to see that these very intelligent animals are using their acute powers of smell to detect what we see as a cancer in our society.

Again, I ask the question: why has this taken two years? I hope it was not deliberate—I presume it was not—because, if it was, it was a bit sloppy, because we had time to address this. The government would know that the opposition is not going to cause a problem with this. I hope that the government has not allowed anybody to get away with anything purely because it did not have the power or the legalese to allow it to happen, and I hope it is not for the same reason that the government would not agree to my anti drug driving bill—I hope not, but I do say: why the lack of focus?

As I move around the state, I note the use of these dogs not only at the airports and the carousels but in other areas where drugs can enter our state, particularly shipping terminals (both passenger and freight), railway stations and trucking stations. The dogs can move in and around loads on trucks very well. They sneak through little holes that you would not believe they could get in, and they can ferret the stuff out, particularly if they know it is there. I take my hat off to these dogs and I also pay credit to the trainers, because it must take thousands of hours.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Yes; I do. I have a lot of respect for the animals that support us, and not just our pets but also the animals of toil that work for us.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr VENNING: We will not deliberate on that. When one is falsely charged one does wear a hat, I can assure the minister of that. I take my hat off to these dogs. They do a wonderful job. The training is just fantastic, and thousands of hours go into it. It is obviously a big investment by the government in the training of them. I understand that we have three dogs. I think we probably have to have three or four more in training to maintain that level of activity. We support this bill. The question is: why did we not deal with this two years ago? We have to support these people. It is a tough enough job without us dragging the chain.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (12:28): I am assured by SAPOL that these dogs have been fully employed on drug warrant work, amongst other things.

Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining stages.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT