HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-07-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CRIMINAL ASSETS CONFISCATION (PRESCRIBED DRUG OFFENDERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 18 May 2011.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (16:11): I rise to speak on the Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offenders) Amendment Bill 2011. I indicate that the opposition has considered this bill and that it will be opposing the same, subject, however, to some technical amendments which I will refer to shortly.

In this house the day before yesterday I was debating legislation that had been introduced as a consequence of the Premier's announcement during the 2010 election campaign in respect of prior discreditable conduct. Essentially, this had been incorporated in the serious crime policy for 2010 for the Australian Labor Party at that election. We found, of course, that the extent of the claims, the ambit of the proposed legislation, was not accepted in the legal community—in particular, for the appropriate balance of protection of parties in criminal cases—and a more reasoned proposal was ultimately presented by the Attorney-General for our consideration and we consented to it.

On this occasion, again, we come before the house to deal with a bill, the gestation of which has come from the ALP serious crime policy at the 2010 election. I do not know whether these sorts of policies help to get people elected during election campaigns but it might be useful for the Electoral Commissioner to consider in future how appropriate it is to present to electors policies of programs that are proposed which are short on detail and, I think, can be interpreted as being designed entirely to attract controversy for the purposes of getting votes and not to actually deal with alleged ills.

In short, this was a policy that was announced, titled 'Taking the Profits from Drug Traffickers' and purporting to have action quoted as 'hitting drug dealers and traffickers where it hurts by targeting their illegal profits'. What we have before us now is legislation in line with this promise, or apparently as a result of this promise, which actually goes even further.

Whilst we have supported the government over a tranche of legislation to assist in the prosecution and confiscation of assets of offenders of serious offences, in this instance we consider this legislation is not acceptable. I would have hoped, on reflection of this promise, that the Attorney would have taken advice, as he had in the previous bill, and either announced that there would be a withdrawal of the perpetuation of this line of legislative reform or, alternatively, simply come back with the technical amendments that were sought on other general matters. However, it seems that he is intending to try and press this as consistent with his Premier's promise, and it is without merit and we consider should be opposed.

The mechanics of this bill essentially involve its introduction in the House of Assembly on 18 May, some 14 months since the election. It purports to introduce provisions to allow the confiscation, to the point of bankruptcy, of repeat drug offender's assets, even those which have been lawfully acquired. If an offender has committed three prescribed offences within 10 years they are eligible to be declared a 'declared drug trafficker'.

If the government felt that the penalties applied for the punishment of repeat serious offenders in this area of the law needed to be increased, or the current penalty regime was inadequate, or that there had been some example of its evasion that we needed to tidy up, then I think that the opposition would have carefully considered that, and, with some demonstrable evidence of the effectiveness of an increase or penalty, would have looked at it in quite a considered way. But to try to bulk up the promise by the Premier, as though he is going to singlehandedly bulldoze or steamroll these dastardly people with this new type of offence, or for the definition to enable them the attraction to confiscate at such an expansive level, is just unacceptable.

The prescribed offences to which this new regime are to apply include trafficking in controlled drugs, manufacture of controlled drugs for sale, sale of controlled precursor for the purpose of manufacture, cultivation of controlled plants for sale, sale of controlled plants, and any offence involving children and school zones. As we understand it, the provisions are similar to those in Western Australia The key difference between the proposed SA and the existing WA model is that all property under the WA system is confiscated, such as washing powder, clothes and personal effects, whereas, to avoid constitutional concerns, the bill only confiscates all property which would usually be taken if a person were declared bankrupt.

Members in this house, I am sure, would be very familiar with it, but for those following this debate with riveted interest, I point out that the government is referring to regulation 6.03 of the commonwealth Bankruptcy Regulations 1996, which take as a broad principle:

Subsection 116(1) of the Act does not extend to household property (including recreational and sports equipment) that is reasonably necessary for the domestic use of the bankrupt's household, having regard to current social standards.

I am not sure what the position is at present and whether that is the only area of exemption. There used to be provision under bankruptcy laws which meant that it was not just personal property, but there was some exemption, I think, for tools of trade. You could keep your hammer or your plumbing faucets or whatever if you were a tradesperson. I am not sure that meant that you could keep a tyre lever if you were a housebreaker but, in any event, there was some provision for that. I thought, from a very foggy memory, there was something about keeping a motor vehicle. In any event, they may well have changed and I understand that this follows the commonwealth regulations, which seem to limit it now to the household property necessary, as I have described.

The proceeds from the confiscation are proposed under this bill to be pooled into a new fund, the justice resources fund, rather than the Victims of Crime Fund. I am not entirely sure why it is necessary to have a separate fund. Sometimes this is for identification and auditing purposes. Perhaps it is because the Victims of Crime Fund is so full of money that there is no room for any more. It should be distributed to those in need, as we have called on the government to do before, or, alternatively, to give some consideration to increasing the funds available to applicants, but there seems to be a complete dismissal of that idea. In any event, it is burgeoning with money. If we are going to have a fund, then it ought to be finding its way to provide some recompense to those for whom the fund was established. However, this lot of confiscated funds, unlike other confiscated funds, is going to go into its own justice resources fund for other purposes.

Consultation on this bill has identified very strong opposition from the Law Society of South Australia. It has raised a number of concerns about the bill, and we are not entirely sure how the government proposes to address some of these concerns or whether it is simply going to ignore them. I summarise the concerns as follows. The first is the question of legality, whether the bill infringes the Kable principle by attempting to compel the court to comply with an administrative decision made without court consideration, that exercises powers usually reserved for the court. This is the same principle challenged in the New South Wales Wainohu case, in which the New South Wales anti-bikie laws were declared invalid.

The second is the lack of nexus. This is a fundamental concern to us as well; that is, there is no nexus between the offence and the asset seized. It is fair to say that, even in legislation, when the government here have said, 'We should have the power to confiscate a motor vehicle,' for someone who uses that motor vehicle while they undertake the act of graffiti on a wall, there is at least some nexus. It is actually being used as a vehicle to get there, carry the cans of paint or whatever and get away and so on, but, in this instance, there appears to be no nexus whatsoever required.

Third is the additional punishment; that is, the scheme provided for a punishment over and above that for the actual offending. When this issue was raised, the opposition considered this quite a lot. I recall the juvenile justice reform by this government, which was to give young people who had been repeat offenders a new label. There had been outrage from the human rights community and youth representatives. Even Justice Peggy Hora did not like that approach where the badging on young people would be issued like some kind of tattoo or branding and, having achieved that, or having acquired it, it would then produce these automatic and different penalty regimes.

I would have thought by the very lengthy debates on that matter that there would have been at least some hesitation by the Attorney-General not to rush down this line. Nevertheless, that is also an important matter raised by the Law Society.

Fourth is the aspect of discrimination. The bill effectively discriminates against citizens who are legally industrious and acquire wealth. It is not hard to imagine how someone may have done all of those things, then acted in a manner that is in breach of the law, had their punishment, then even what they have acquired previously is under threat of confiscation. There just does not seem to be any recognition of what is acceptable.

The fifth aspect is the question of innocent parties being caught up in this because this relates to when there is the seizure of assets that may deprive the citizen's family of the assets, regardless of whether they are dependents. We need to be careful about how this going to have some effect in that regard. Bear in mind that, if one uses standards that are applicable in bankruptcy, one needs to also appreciate that the acquisition of one's assets and the capacity to hold onto them may, of course, be significantly jeopardised if, by virtue of someone's action or omission, they find themselves in a situation where they lose their assets.

That is a direct consequence to their own conduct or failure to protect themselves against other conduct. In that circumstance, they know they pay the price. They have either mortgaged their property or offered it as security, or it is unable to be protected or alienated from claims, even where there is not a security over it. In that instance, a person is vulnerable to have to pay their debts and lose their assets. Their wife or husband or partner or dependent children in those circumstances—sometimes it is more extensive—are vulnerable to go down with the ship. I think that is something that everyone is subject to. They are the laws out there. They are the rules.

In this instance, though, there will be a presumption that someone who goes out and commits an offence, having had a prior history of accumulation of assets and security for his or her family, is then vulnerable to losing all of that, even when they are doing the right and decent thing, to which there is no possible connection. They have bought a home. We are using one example here of trafficking controlled drugs by a male person. He is married. His spouse is not an accessory or involved in any way in relation to that offence; but, prior to any of this activity, they acquired a home together, they have three dependent children; suddenly, the house is gone. This is just not an acceptable regime in terms of how that would be vulnerable to being swept away.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: No; I am talking now about this legislation, not bankruptcy.

The sixth matter of concern raised by the Law Society was just the whole question of due process, that is, that the current legislation, entitled Citizens Facing Confiscation to Appeal to a Court, does not provide that right. That is an aspect about which I am quite shocked and that the Attorney would even purport to come into this house with a bill without that remedy. We, I think, as a state pride ourselves on ensuring that we have a fair and just application of the law in full recognition that mistakes and errors can be made. We have an appeal process, it stands us in good stead and it remedies some very bad ills from time to time, but to introduce such a draconian piece of legislation and not even allow for the appeal process, I am quite disturbed by.

It does not surprise me coming from the Premier. He throws around all sorts of promises of doing things which I think do not follow proper process. But we always live in hope in this house of the steady hand of the Attorney-General and sound mind of his assessment of these things, and that he would take the Premier aside and be able to counsel him back into some kind of equilibrium to be on the same planet with ordinary, decent people in the application of a legal system which works and which is equitable.

If he did that and failed, I would commend him for at least trying. Nevertheless, it is a concern that that is prevailing, and even after concerns had been raised by the Law Society. It is not easy, of course, for anyone (especially premiers in election campaigns) to come out afterwards and say, 'Actually, look, in the clear light of day—and I have had the wise counsel of my new Attorney-General—I realise now I have overstepped the mark. I blurted out too much. I raised the threshold, I promised too much and I made a terrible mistake.'

No-one wants to admit those things, but the Premier always has the opportunity to do that, and he could have and he should have in a circumstance where not only, I am sure, some people in his own political party would have raised it with him. When the Law Society itself has raised these issues, you would think that alarm bells would be starting to clang in his head.

The Liberal Party has consistently supported criminal assets confiscation and unexplained wealth legislation, and we have had a raft of it under this government. It existed previously in its narrowest form, and there has been an enhancement of it and we have supported the government in doing it. There are times we have not been certain about whether some aspects would actually be beneficial, but we have supported the government in ensuring that it has an opportunity to give it a go. Where alarming concerns have been raised, that has been a responsible position to take, we think, when there have been no identified ills in the face of progressing down that line.

We have supported therefore depriving citizens of not only the proceeds of crime but also the instruments of crime, even where the instrument of crime is lawfully acquired. Provided that nexus is there, we have said, 'Tick, yes. Maybe it won't help, maybe it will, but it's worth a go and we will support it,' and that legislation has advanced. This is a bill that is fundamentally different. It entitles the state to confiscate assets which the citizen may be able to demonstrate are lawfully acquired. The confiscation is more in the nature of a fine and we say, therefore, can significantly exceed the penalty for the particular offence. If the government was genuinely concerned to say, 'We think that there is an added deterrent by increasing the penalty,' bring on that presentation.

However, there is a fundamental aspect in relation to penalties, and I suppose it makes the presumption that when people commit crimes they actually know exactly what the penalties are going to be. Probably, in my view, they do not. They may know that if they murder someone, rob a bank or commit serious and well-known felonies that they are going to be in big trouble and probably in prison for a long time, particularly if someone gets hurt or dies, but they don't necessarily know exactly what the penalty is at that time. They may go to their lawyer and say, 'I've committed this offence,' and only at that stage be told that the maximum penalty for this offence is eight years' imprisonment, 15 years' imprisonment, life imprisonment, etc. 'With this aggravated aspect of it, it is in another category and it falls within this regime.'

I am not one who subscribes to the view that everyone who goes out and commits crimes is doing so in the full knowledge that if they are caught they will know exactly what the maximum penalty is. I think the ordinary person does not know that, and it is not necessarily even something that would modify their behaviour so that they do not commit the offence. However, the fundamental tenet of our legal system is that you cannot just make it up as you go. You cannot just throw in an amount. We make the presumption that the law is known to people, we do not accept that you can go into a courtroom and not know what your potential maximum penalty is upon conviction and that every person accused is entitled to be protected against somebody or some entity changing the rules between the time of commission and the time of conviction.

I think the classic example of this, which was upheld under the protection of an Australian-trained judge, was the circumstance that happened in Fiji, probably close on 10 years ago now, when there had been a rebellion in Fiji and there were penalties in relation to treasonable activity—I cannot remember the exact nature of the offence at the time. At the time of the uprising and the offence occurring, the leader of this rebellion, if he had been convicted, was liable to life imprisonment. Between the time of arrest and the trial, the regime in charge changed the law so that the new penalty that was available was the death penalty.

If my memory serves me correctly, there was international outrage—I do remember that—about this fundamental principle of some other party changing the rules in between. You can change the rules but they are to be applied, generally, prospectively rather than retrospectively. In this instance, there was clearly an attempt made by those in power to change the rules so that this person, if found guilty, could be executed.

Justice Wilson, I think—certainly a retired judge from South Australia—was requested to undertake a review of that process in Fiji. Fiji has come to Australia from time to time over the period of its relationship to provide support in areas such as this at times, and Australia has significant investment in infrastructure and industry in Fiji, so we are very cooperative in that regard. It was very clear that this principle was going to be upheld and the determination was that it was unacceptable, and in their view unenforceable, that this new penalty could be used. From memory, I think actually the decision was made at that even after there had been a conviction and some expression of the death penalty to apply. In any event, that is probably academic. The principle there is the same.

The levying of fines and monetary penalties at a fixed rate therefore is a well-established element of the criminal law. Governments of all persuasions have avoided income related fines. The circumstances of the offender can be taken into account in sentencing and the law should not discriminate between people on the basis of their income or assets. Applying the criminal assets confiscation to the seizure of lawfully obtained assets, as proposed in this bill, is just another form of taxation.

We are also concerned, as I say, about the diversion or pooling of this fund into a new fund, this justice resources fund; the diversion of funds away from the victims of crime. Again, I am a bit surprised at this approach. I appreciate that under the regime of the former attorney-general there were many speeches in this house about the importance of changing the law to be more pro victim than offender and to be able to give them some remedy and to be able to have some financial compensation. There were lots of speeches; there was not a lot of delivery.

The saddest failure, I think, by the former attorney was his failure to adequately deal with redress to those who had been victims of child sexual abuse whilst in institutional care. It is disappointing that in the 14 months since the last election the new attorney, in my view, has not adequately addressed that either. Nevertheless, he certainly gave a lot of speeches about it. This piece of legislation is going to harvest these assets and funds and then divert them away from victims of crime or hypothecate the revenue to general government purposes.

I am not sure what ultimately happens with the justices resource fund, but there is a level in the bill which suggests that there is some flexibility in that regard. So the opposition's position is that we need to be satisfied that there is some dedicated purpose which is secure. If it is acceptable to be of superior priority to victims, then we will consider it, but we consider it has not been identified adequately to date.

If the Attorney just gives me a moment, he might be relieved that I am not going to cover some other matters that have already been adequately covered. With those few words, I indicate that the opposition opposes the bill.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (16:45): It is not my intention to take up too much of the house's time, but this is an area where I feel fairly strongly and wish to put on the record my views. So, it is with that in mind that I rise to speak on the Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offenders) Amendment Bill. This bill introduces provisions that will allow the confiscation to the point of bankruptcy of repeat drug offenders' assets, even those which have been lawfully acquired.

I know that if an offender has committed three prescribed offences in 10 years, they are eligible to be declared a declared drug trafficker. Prescribed offences are to include trafficking in controlled drugs, the manufacture of controlled drugs for sale, sale of controlled precursor for the purpose of manufacture, cultivation of controlled plants for sale, sale of controlled plants, and any offence involving children in school zones.

As a general rule, I think that in our approach on drug crime it is better to err on the side of being harsher on criminals who would seek to involve young people in the criminal drug trade. So, as a general rule, I would usually support the government on increasing penalties for these sorts of offenders; however, the legal principles that the member for Bragg talked about before put me perfectly happy in the opposition's position of opposing this bill.

I want to put on the record, particularly this week, why my strong support for ongoing review of the way that we deal with drug dealing criminals is pursued. Yesterday the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare released its triennial survey of Australian households on drug and alcohol issues. This is the most significant survey of drug and alcohol data that is done in Australia. There were two particular statistics I noted in this 250-odd page report that I want to bring to the house's attention which demonstrate why it is important for us to continue to focus on this area of drug crime.

Members would not be surprised to know, given the public statements I have made today, that I have a particular concern about substance abuse when it comes to minors who fall within the responsibility of their parents and about whom the state takes a particular concern, and that is obviously reflected in the principles of this bill which makes a distinction for crimes committed in school zones and involving children.

I regret to inform the house that South Australia is the worst state or territory in Australia in relation to drug use by the age group of 12 to 17 year olds. According to this significant data released yesterday, 14.2 per cent of South Australian young people aged between 12 and 17 have used illicit drugs in the last 12 months. The next highest is Western Australia at 12.6 per cent—higher than the national average of 10.4 per cent—and leaving us a long way behind states like New South Wales and Queensland where drug use by minors is under 10 per cent. We are 50 per cent higher than that. We clearly have a significant problem.

Of course, the most widely used drug is cannabis in South Australia, which also leads the field of dishonour in relation to the use of cannabis by minors. This is 'minors', I should point out; 'miners' is a different set of statistics. Twelve per cent of 12 to 17 year olds in South Australia have used cannabis in the last year, followed by 11.3 per cent in Western Australia. The national average is 8.8 per cent.

So, I support the government looking into the measures that we use to deal with serious drug criminals, dealers and offenders. It is important that when we are talking about these issues we do not confuse the matter by criminalising those who would be best dealt with by seeking treatment and education, and I think there are improvements that can be made to that aspect of the system, but it is a crucial nexus to make. I think we need to be compassionate towards the victims of drug crime, and that includes a number of the people who are addicted to illicit drugs, and set them back on the right track. We need to be strong and firm when it comes to those who would seek to gain personal advantage by making money out of this heinous crime.

There is a series of reasons why this is not the correct approach to be taken, and the member for Bragg has outlined some of them. There is a question as to whether it is legal anyway. There is a lack of nexus between the offence and the assets seized. The scheme provides for punishment over and above that for the actual offending—which is a poor principle. The seizure of assets may deprive a citizen's family who are potentially innocent of the assets, regardless of whether they are dependants. It is fundamentally different from criminal assets confiscation and unexplained wealth legislation in that it entitles the state to confiscate assets which the citizen may be able to demonstrate were lawfully acquired. For those reasons I do not support this bill but I do think that the Attorney is right in saying that this is an area that needs consideration in terms of the way that we deal with drug criminals.


[Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. J.R. Rau]


The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Urban Development, Planning and the City of Adelaide, Minister for Tourism, Minister for Food Marketing) (16:51): I will start off by thanking the members for Bragg and Morialta for their contributions. As a lawyer I obviously understand the points that both speakers have made and, in general terms, it would be hard to dismiss the remarks made by either of the speakers as being irrelevant, frivolous or foolish. I do not even pretend to do that. However, I do want to say a couple of things.

First of all, at a political level this was, after all, an election promise and it is the duty of the government, having gone before the people at an election and having made a promise, to do its utmost to fulfil that promise, if one subscribes to the Salisbury principle, which is the Westminster principle that an elected government, having gone to the public with a program, should be entitled, by virtue of their election at that point in time, to a mandate from both houses to put into effect the program which they put before the parliament.

So, on the one hand the government is duty-bound to put before the parliament what it promised to do before the election and, on the other hand, the Westminster convention would have it that an opposition operating within that environment would be obliged—not as a matter of law, of course—as a matter of convention to support a measure which fitted within the envelope of a matter that was clearly a campaign pledge.

I am not going to take that any further, but the honourable member for Bragg asked us why we were doing this and I think that probably explains it, and why, to the extent that I can say so, I think it is not an unreasonable proposition for the matter having been put at an election, the government having been returned, for the opposition to say, 'Well, the government has a mandate for this measure by virtue of it having been put to the people.' We could spend hours on that, and I am not going to—I just put that up-front.

The second thing is lawyers. Yes, lawyers do have views about these things, and quite rightly so. I know there are a lot of terrible jokes about lawyers, about sharks refusing to eat them and things like that, but they are completely unfair. Some of my best friends are lawyers and they are, by and large, decent people who are trying to do the right thing and do actually have principles which underpin their approaches to different things. I realise that this legislation, in many respects, is a departure from what one would call the normal or established principles which most lawyers would regard as being appropriate. I am not going to go through them all because the member for Bragg has enumerated those and so has the Law Society.

However, can I make it clear, first of all, the Western Australian government introduced legislation like this some time ago and its legislation is harsher than this because it has a total seizure of all assets. We do not. We have a provision that the bankruptcy rules would apply to the seizure of assets, which would mean that all of the protections that are afforded to families and spouses and so forth under the bankruptcy rules would also apply to offenders under these rules. Attention was given to the question of families and collateral damage to innocent people in the framing of this legislation, which is why the bankruptcy provision is there. For example, I think Mrs Bond was able to continue to live in a reasonably comfortable residence whilst Mr Bond was spending time very unwell in a prison, although he appears to have come good again—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. He appears to have improved a lot now and he is doing business again in London. There you are. It is a great testament to the prison system that he was able to be rehabilitated to that extent.

The next point that was raised by both speakers was the question of the nexus. In a direct sense what they say is incontrovertible. However, some of the biggest operators in this area are not people with goatee beards and tattoos all over them. Some of the people who are making the most money out of drugs and out of other very socially destructive activities which are entirely criminal are accountants, or at least ostensibly accountants, or businessmen, or at least ostensibly businessmen, who have what appear to be legitimate businesses through which they funnel funds which are illegally obtained. They are able to present themselves to the public as being a successful operator of a corner delicatessen or a restaurant or whatever but, in fact, that place is just a sinkhole that is part of their facade. Some of these people are very sophisticated.

The second thing is that the bigger the crook is—in other words, in terms of their asset pool—the harder these sorts of provisions hit them. You might say, 'That's not fair because it is a moving feast.' In terms of the penalty, when you have a wealthy person who has spent a long time accumulating their current funds and somebody says to them, 'How would you like to get into cooking amphetamines?' they might think to themselves, 'Look, do I want to risk everything I have built up over my whole life so I can cook amphetamines, or am I going to say, no thanks; go to somebody else?' In the sense of not knowing what the penalty is, I guess bizarrely perhaps, or counterintuitively, a provision like this makes the penalty really clear: you lose the lot.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am just saying that this is the policy that was put to the public and all I am doing, in conformity with the promise made by the current government in the run-up to the last election, is bringing forward the proposal that was made. Here it is. Bear in mind the bankruptcy thing is a bit of a moderation of things, it is a tweak—I know it is only a little tweak, but it is a tweak—and it offers some security for spouses or children or whatever.

The other thing that I would like to say to honourable members about the fund is that if you look at clause 36 of the legislation, which seeks to insert section 209A, subsection (5) states what this money can be applied towards. I am talking especially here as the member for Morialta raised the issue about training, education and appropriate diversionary programs, etc. If you look at subsection (5)(b) you will see that one of the particular directions to which moneys from this fund can be sent is for the provision of programs and facilities within the justice system for dealing with drug and alcohol related crime. Some of the concerns that the member for Morialta has expressed are specifically the subject of focus in the fund which would be the beneficiary of these orders.

The other thing is provision of courts infrastructure, equipment or services. Again, court services—that is a broad concept—courts infrastructure and so forth. Let us face it, what could be better than criminals supporting the court system by paying for it? That is a marvellous retributive justice thing.

Mr Gardner: The Chief Justice would be thrilled.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Exactly. The honourable member makes a very good point. The Chief Justice, who made some very important remarks recently about his computers and other matters, might be able to say to the Attorney of the day, 'Well, Attorney, how's our fund going?' and the Attorney will be able to say, 'Well, Chief Justice, we've got enough there for your courts having new computers.' Wouldn't that be a marvellous thing? All paid for by crooks, and everybody would know it was the crooks who paid for it. Everybody would know.

It is not just any crooks: drug dealers, drug traffickers, people with amphetamine kitchens—the absolute rock bottom outfits; absolutely terrible people who cause misery throughout the community, making money illegally, corrupting people as they go about their business and who are an absolute blight on the community. You could almost hear the Handel music—George Frideric Handel I am talking about, not something else—music for the King's fireworks or something like that happening as the first money started to flow out of this fund into the courts. It would be a moment when people could rejoice. So, I am not embarrassed about the fund at all.

Can I say to the honourable members opposite that I do appreciate where you are coming from. I have read the Law Society's letter. I do understand what they are saying. I know you have indicated your wish to oppose the legislation. For that reason, I assume there is not much point going to committee, because we will just be repeating ourselves, and we will just have a vote here. However, can I make an offer to the opposition: if between here and elsewhere you have some thoughts as to how this can be amended so that it is something that we can move forward on, I am open to have a discussion with you about that.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As I said, if that is the deal breaker, let us have a talk about it. If I were you, I would not be visiting the Supreme Court too often in the near future if you do that, but that is a matter for you. You will have some very unhappy justices to deal with. Anyway, that is a matter for you. I am just making the offer. If you do want to talk about it, I am more than happy to talk about it. It appears that everybody understands where we are. We are doing this because we promised to do it.

I understand why the opposition does not like it. I understand why the Law Society does not like it. It is really a policy question and, I guess, to come back to that Salisbury principle, do we have a mandate to do this or do we not? If we do, is it appropriate for the opposition to nevertheless oppose it because of the reasons that they have espoused here today? That is obviously their choice and they have a right to do that. I think that is where we are. I guess where we go from here would be to have a vote on the second reading. I do not think we need to bother going into committee, and we can do the third reading as well, if that is convenient.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Urban Development, Planning and the City of Adelaide, Minister for Tourism, Minister for Food Marketing) (17:04): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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