HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-10-16 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CRIMINAL ASSETS CONFISCATION (PRESCRIBED DRUG OFFENDER ASSETS) AMENDMENT BILL

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (11:02): I move:

That standing orders be so far suspended as to enable the introduction forthwith and passage of a bill through all stages without delay.

The SPEAKER: An absolute majority not being present, ring the bells.

An absolute majority of the whole number of members being present:

Motion carried.

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (11:05): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2005. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (11:05): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading explanation inserted in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

Labor's 2010 Serious Crime election policy stated that 'This proposal will amend the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act…to target persistent or high level drug offenders to provide for total confiscation of the property of a "Declared Drug Trafficker"'. The policy details were:

New powers will be given to the Director of Public Prosecutions to allow criminal drug dealers who commit three prescribed offences within a span of 10 years to be 'declared a drug trafficker.

Under this proposal, which targets high level and major drug trafficking offenders, all of a convicted offender's property can be confiscated, whether or not it is established as unlawfully acquired and whether or not there is any level of proof about any property at all. Property and assets could also be restrained pending prosecution of matters before the court.

The legislation will attack repeat drug offenders. The offences that will attract the declaration if committed 3 or more times within a span of 10 years 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.

The Bill, with a modification, fulfils this election pledge.

Prescribed Drug Offenders

The idea that all of the property of certain drug offenders (described in the Bill as prescribed drug offenders) should be confiscated, whether or not it has any link to crime at all and whether or not legitimately earned or acquired, originated in the Western Australian Criminal Property Forfeiture Act 2000. If a person is taken to be a declared drug trafficker under either section 32A(1) of the Misuse of Drugs Act of that State or is declared under section 159(2) of the Confiscation Act, then, effectively, all of their property is confiscated without any exercise of discretion at all, whether or not it is lawfully acquired and whether or not there is any level of proof about any property at all. The two situations are a convicted drug trafficker of a certain kind and an absconding accused. The first category is the most general.

With respect to convicted drug offenders, there are two situations catered for. The first is the repeat offender. The second is the major offender (whether repeat or not).

The repeat offender is caught if he is convicted on a third (or more) offence for nominated offences within a period of 10 years. The nominated offences are: possession of a prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply, manufacturing or preparing; or selling or supplying, or offering to sell or supply, a prohibited drug; possession of a prohibited plant with intent to sell or supply, or selling or supplying, or offering to sell or supply, a prohibited plant; attempting to commit these offences; and conspiring to commit these offences.

The major offender is caught if the person commits any one offence at any time about a prohibited drug or prohibited plant that exceeds a prescribed amount. Those amounts are prescribed in Schedules to the Act (not regulations) and list, for example, 28 grams of amphetamine, 3 kilograms of cannabis, 100 grams of cannabis resin, 28 grams of heroin and 250 cannabis plants.

Section 159(2) says that a person will be taken to be a declared drug trafficker if the person is charged with a serious drug offence within the meaning of section 32A(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 and the person could be declared to be a drug trafficker under section 32A(1) of that Act if he or she is convicted of the offence, and the person absconds in connection with the offence, or dies, before the charge is disposed of or finally determined. A serious drug offence within the meaning of section 32A(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 means a crime under section 6(1), 7(1), 33(1)(a) or 33(2)(a) of that Act. The content of these crimes has been outlined immediately above.

The Northern Territory Criminal Property Forfeiture Act contains very similar provisions, obviously modelled on the Western Australian Act. However, the Northern Territory Act contains only the repeat offender version of the first category and extends to death and absconding. It does not contain what is described as the major offender category described above. No other Australian jurisdiction has anything like either of these Acts.

Under the WA scheme and its counterpart in the Northern Territory, all of the declared drug trafficker's assets are subject to forfeiture—everything. The Government has taken the view that it will ameliorate the harshness of the scheme by providing that the prescribed offender forfeit everything except what a bankrupt would be allowed to keep. These rules are to be found in regulation 6.03 of the Commonwealth Bankruptcy Regulations 1996. The lists are extensive, but the general principle is:

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.

High Level or Major Traffickers

Whether or not a person can be presumed to be, in common usage, a high level or major trafficker will depend largely, but not wholly, on the amount of the drug with which he or she is associated. The SA amounts listed in the SA Controlled Substances (General) Regulations as indicating commercial activity are those prescribed as a result of a national consultative process fixing amounts on the basis of research across Australia on the actual activities of the illicit drug markets informed by police expertise. The obvious way to proceed is to fix on the amounts already settled.

Repeat Offenders

The legislation also attacks repeat offenders. The key to this category is settling the offences to which it applies—that is, what offences will attract the declaration if committed 3 or more times within a span of 10 years. The Bill says that the offences to which it should apply are serious drug offences that are indictable. These are those offences listed in that part of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 under the headings 'Commercial offences' and 'Offences involving children and school zones'.

The Fund

The proceeds from the existing criminal assets confiscation scheme must be paid into the Victims of Crime Fund (after the costs of administering the scheme are deducted). It is proposed that funds raised by the application of this new initiative be devoted to another fund, to be called the Justice Resources Fund. This Fund will be devoted to the provision of moneys for courts infrastructure, equipment and services and the provision of moneys for justice programs and facilities for dealing with drug and alcohol related crime. Disbursements will not overlap with those made from or eligible for moneys from the existing Victims of Crime Fund. The Government does not believe it to be proper that money from the Fund be spent on law enforcement or criminal investigation purposes.

Other Aspects of the Scheme

The Western Australian scheme has also been modified so that a court has a discretion to ameliorate the inflexible application of this scheme if the offender has effectively co-operated with a law enforcement agency relating directly to the investigation or occurrence or possible occurrence of a serious and organised crime offence. For these purposes, a serious and organised crime offence is defined in a way that mirrors the definition in the Australian Crime Commission (South Australia) Act 2004. Every encouragement should be given to serious criminals to inform on their co-offenders and any criminal organisations to which they belong or are party.

As is the case with the WA and NT legislation, a person is a prescribed drug offender where there is sufficient evidence to conclude that a person would have been liable to be a prescribed drug offender and the person either absconds or dies.

The Bill also adopts the Northern Territory innovation that the time period of 10 years in relation to the repeat offender does not run if and while the offender is imprisoned.

This Bill was originally a part of the Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offenders) Amendment Bill 2011. The Opposition, with the support of sufficient independents, saw fit to strip out and defeat the substance of this Bill. This time they will have to vote against it as a Bill if they intend the same result.

I commend the Bill to Members.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

2—Commencement

3—Amendment provisions

These clauses are formal.

Part 2—Amendment of Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2005

4—Amendment of long title

This clause amends the long title of the principal Act to reflect the changes made by this measure.

5—Amendment of section 3—Interpretation

This clause amends section 3 of the principal Act to include, or to consequentially amend, definitions of terms used in respect of the amendments made by this measure.

6—Insertion of section 6A

This clause inserts new section 6A into the principal Act. It sets out what is a prescribed drug offender, namely a person who is convicted of a commercial drug offence after the commencement of the proposed section, or who is convicted of another serious drug offence and has at least 2 other convictions for prescribed drug offences, those offences and the conviction offence all being committed on separate occasions within a period of 10 years. However, the 10 year period does not include any time spent in government custody. The proposed section makes procedural provision in respect of the convictions able to be used in the determining whether a person is a prescribed drug offender. The proposed section also defines key terms used in respect of prescribed drug offenders, including setting out what are commercial and prescribed drug offences.

7—Amendment of section 10—Application of Act

This clause makes a consequential amendment to section 10 of the principal Act.

8—Amendment of section 24—Restraining orders

This clause inserts new subsection (5a) into section 24 of the principal Act, which prevents a court from specifying protected property (the definition of which is inserted by this measure) in a restraining order unless there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the property is the proceeds of, or is an instrument of, a serious offence.

9—Amendment of section 34—Court may exclude property from restraining order

This clause amends section 34 of the principal Act by inserting new subparagraph (ia), adding to the list of matters a court must be satisfied of before it may exclude property from a restraining order. The subparagraph is divided into parts dealing with where the suspect has, and has not, been convicted of the serious offence to which the restraining order relates.

The first such matter is that the court can only exclude property where the suspect has not, or would not, become a prescribed drug offender on conviction of the serious offence. Alternatively, the property may be excluded if the court is satisfied it is not owned by, nor under the effective control of, the suspect in the circumstances spelt out in the provision (even if the suspect is, or will be upon conviction of the relevant offence, a prescribed drug offender).

The power to correct an error in respect of the inclusion of the relevant property when making the restraining order is given to the court because the property restrained in respect of prescribed drug offenders is not necessarily proceeds nor an instrument of crime.

10—Amendment of section 47—Forfeiture orders

This clause amends section 47(1)(a) of the principal Act to include the fact that a person is a prescribed drug offender as a ground for the making of a forfeiture order under that section (provided that the relevant property was owned by or subject to the effective control of the person on the conviction day for the conviction offence).

11—Amendment of section 57—Relieving certain dependants from hardship

This clause makes a consequential amendment due to the amendment of section 47(1)(a) by this measure.

12—Amendment of section 58—Making exclusion orders before forfeiture order is made

This clause amends section 58 of the principal Act to provide that property sought to be excluded from a forfeiture order must not, in the case of a forfeiture order to which section 47(1)(a)(ii) applies (ie a prescribed drug offender order), at the relevant time be owned by, or under the effective control of, the prescribed drug offender (unless it is protected property of the person).

13—Amendment of section 59—Making exclusion orders after forfeiture

This clause amends section 59, consistent with clause 15, to provide that property sought to be excluded from a forfeiture order must not, in the case of a forfeiture order to which section 47(1)(a)(ii) applies (ie a prescribed drug offender order), at the relevant time be owned by, or under the effective control of, the prescribed drug offender (unless it is protected property of the person).

14—Insertion of section 59A

This clause inserts new section 59A into the principal Act. That section allows a person to apply for property to be excluded from a restraining order because the person has cooperated with a law enforcement authority in relation to a serious and organised crime offence, be it one that has occurred or may occur in future.

The mechanisms and procedures in relation to an order excluding the property are similar to other such provisions in the principal Act.

15—Amendment of section 62A—No exclusion or compensation where forfeiture taken into account in sentencing

This clause makes a consequential amendment to section 62A (proposed to be inserted by the Criminal Assets Confiscation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2012).

16—Amendment of section 76—Excluding property from forfeiture under this Division

This clause amends section 76 to prevent exclusion of property owned by or under the effective control of a prescribed drug offender (other than protected property).

17—Insertion of section 76AA

This clause inserts a provision similar to the provision in clause 14 allowing for exclusion from forfeiture based on cooperation with a law enforcement agency.

18—Amendment of section 76A—No exclusion where forfeiture taken into account in sentencing

This clause makes a consequential amendment.

19—Substitution of section 203

This clause amends the structure of section 203 of the principal Act to reflect the changes made by this measure.

20—Amendment of heading

This clause is consequential.

21—Amendment of section 209—Credits to Victims of Crime Fund

This clause is consequential.

22—Insertion of section 209A

This clause provides for the establishment of the Justice Resources Fund, to be administered by the Attorney-General, and for the proceeds of confiscated assets of prescribed drug offenders to be paid into the fund.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (11:06): We are back here today for the third time to deal with an amendment to the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act in an attempt by the government to fulfil what it says was its 2010 election promise. Consistent with its general wave of 'tough on law and order', the government announced that it would be tough on declared drug traffickers and that the way in which it was going to deal with this would be to ensure that repeat drug offenders would have available for confiscation, once they were declared, all assets, whether they were acquired legally from ill-gotten gains or directly from the crime for which they had been convicted.

In this state, we have comprehensive and effective asset confiscation laws which have had the support of the opposition in their development under this government and which are clearly designed to ensure that criminals understand very clearly that, if they break the law, the fruits of their ill-gotten gains will be able to be taken from them and, indeed, from parties who might have been associated with that venture. That is entirely appropriate. On the information we have, that is an effective mechanism.

My understanding is that frequently what happens is that, when an application is made for confiscation, the recipient of that notice does not even defend it and, as a consequence, very significant amounts of money—indeed, millions of dollars in assets—are able to be taken from them and are able to be applied as part of government expenditure for the provision of services to the people of South Australia. All of that is good. It works, it is effective, and it is right.

The opposition's position, however, in respect of this announcement during the election has been to say that that is unacceptable. Indeed, when the government introduced a bill similar to this one but including provision for miscellaneous reforms, to which I will refer during debate on the bill which is to follow, we made it absolutely clear the last time we were here, back in July I think it was, that that would be our position—indeed, with the support of members of the minority parties and the Independents in the Legislative Council. They, too, saw the benefit in ensuring that we do not go too far; that is, in going too far, to be able to take convicted offenders' property which had been their legitimate asset.

The government's reaction to that is to say, 'We will sever the bills. We will take this portion, together with a victims of crime application issue, and put it in one bill,' which is the bill we are currently discussing. Other issues are to be appropriately remedied and, in due course this morning, the opposition will be supporting that second bill. Their way of managing this is to separate the two aspects that, clearly, are offensive to the opposition and also offensive to right-thinking sensible people in another place who have said that it is an abuse of the power all to try to fulfil an exaggerated unnecessary claim that was presented at the time of the election.

I have said this before and I will say it again: it is quite reasonable for a new government—the new Weatherill government—with a new leader and a new Attorney-General to put behind them into the past acts of lunacy that were projected or proposed or published by the previous government. In fact, the Premier has come into this house and said, 'Under my government, there will be a level of civility in the operation of my ministers and I, in the parliament and externally. We will have a new regime in relation to the transparency, accountability and openness of government. We will not be doing announce and defends.' He set out, almost a year ago now, the level of expectation he had for his new government. He drew a line in the sand (except he did not quite draw a line in the sand in relation to Lance Armstrong), and he came in here and said, 'I am the new Premier and this is going to be the new regime.'

Similarly, we saw that the Attorney had distanced himself from a number of actions and statements of the former attorney-general—his predecessor, the member for Croydon or, as I like to say, the member for Spence, as he should rightfully be known, of course. The member for Croydon had a quirky objection to his own seat in removing the name of Spence from his own electorate, for goodness sake. Catherine Helen Spence was one of the greatest and most renowned suffragettes in this state. Of course, he rejected her even as the name for his own electorate—shame on him.

He had some quirky things, and I will have a little bit more to say about him later in the week. However, on this issue, he made some unusual statements, and he had some rather peculiar ideas. We find that, unfortunately, when the new Attorney-General had the opportunity to draw a line in the sand himself, as the Premier had done in distancing himself from his predecessor, he did not do so. He comes in here, for the third time now, to try to push this through the parliament, to have the accolade of any other shock jocks out there that he can get support from and to march through and try to mince this parliament into submission over this issue. It was not acceptable to us then and it is not acceptable to us now. I think it is rather insulting that the government should come in to say, 'We are now going to separate the bills and we are still going to press ahead with this.'

The government would be better served telling us what, in fact, they have been doing to deal with repeat drug offenders—what they have been doing to catch them, what they have been doing to prosecute them and how effective they have been at it—in relation to making sure that we stamp out this serious crime, organised as it often is, and that we must therefore be vigilant about. But no, they do not come and tell us what they have not done: they come to us with a ridiculous idea from the former government which they have perpetuated for the third time in an attempt to push it through this parliament. We will not surrender on that, and that is the position.

The second aspect of this bill, which is also totally offensive to the opposition, is that the government is hell-bent on raiding any fund they can find to prop up their own budget. The initiative that they propose is that the proceeds from the criminal assets confiscation scheme are, under these amendments, to be paid into the Victims of Crime Fund, and those funds are to be available for what they say is a new initiative in another fund to earmark it for the provision of moneys for courts, infrastructure, equipment and services, and the provision of moneys for justice programs and the facility for dealing with drug and alcohol related crime. It is to be called the justices resources fund. Well, what happened to the budget? What happened to general revenue?

Why is it that victims of crime—victims of crime, for goodness sake—who this government for the last 11 years has pretended to be the friend of, should suddenly have their fund raided for the provision of services, which, for as long as I can remember and certainly before, has been provided for under general revenue? It is shameful. It is not the first time they have tried to do this. We have already had examples before this parliament where attempts have been made to redirect the resources and funds that came into the legal practitioners fund. That is a fund which enjoys revenue from the interest of clients of solicitors who invest in trust accounts.

Of course, banks should not get the windfall; that is fair enough, but the money from that goes into a fund to ensure that victims of the conduct of a legal practitioner who have suffered a loss and/or are adversely affected can have a legitimate claim, having reached certain thresholds, and have some compensation for that misappropriation, or at least inappropriate conduct of a legal practitioner. What has the government tried to do? It has already come to this parliament and tried to raid that so that it has some control over the direction of those funds.

We have a real estate review out for consideration at the moment. There is no bill before the parliament; I do not know when that is coming. In that instance there is an indemnity fund where the deposits that people pay for the purchase of properties—homes and the like—is accumulated in a fund, and I think there is over $100 million in that fund now. And that is a fund which the government wants to get its greedy little hands on so that it can direct the payment of expenses that have historically (and should continue) been paid out of general revenue.

It is the case that the government is so short of money that it has to pick up the annual report from the budget papers and go through this long list of funds which have been dedicated historically for a specific purpose, which is to provide for victims (usually) of inappropriate conduct by others and to which the government has made no direct contribution. It wants to be able to use it for its education purposes, the payment of its enforcement officers and the infrastructure of courts, for example, in this instance.

I heard the other day about the boat levy where people pay money into a fund. I am not quite sure how that works, but that is in that great long list. Money is paid in when you pay your boat registration—you pay a levy—and there is specific provision to protect those funds to be applied under the direction of a panel (appointed by the minister) to determine where around the state marine facilities might best be developed. That is my understanding. They make that determination—obviously the minister—because government funds go into that fund and, in addition to that, it is supplemented by taxpayers' funds and, therefore, they can make those decisions.

I only heard the other day that that is under threat, that the government wants to try to get its grubby little hands on that. It seems to me it is just going through the list of all of these funds which are held on behalf of others. There are little funds for transport, for water in far-flung parts of the state. There are all sorts of little curious funds. It is an interesting read going through that whole list.

This is just another example. Treasurer Snelling is so cash-strapped that the government wants to come in here and say that now the victims of crime people are going to be deprived of a part of a benefit of a fund which has tens of millions of dollars in it because the government needs it to prop up the court infrastructure process, to fix up the computers and to provide for services. That is a disgrace and the opposition will not be complicit in supporting one consideration, one aspect or one movement towards the alienation of those funds from their proper purpose. The proper purpose in this instance is for victims of crime.

I am appalled at the history of this government in their failure to deal with all of the victims of crime that we had through the Mullighan inquiry. We have had people who have come forward and we have had a disgraceful display of delay and obtuse interference with settling the reasonable claims of the people who agonised over giving their evidence to the late Ted Mullighan, who was the commissioner in that instance.

The SPEAKER: Point of order. The Attorney-General.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Interesting and inaccurate though the remarks are that we are now having the privilege of listening to, they are not relevant to the matter before the chamber. It might be helpful if the honourable member confined her remarks to the matter that is actually before us presently.

The SPEAKER: I refer the member back to the substance of the debate.

Ms CHAPMAN: The Victims of Crime Fund—and I will refer specifically to the contribution that has been tabled and received into the parliament as taken as read this morning—confirms with the bill that the funds from the criminal assets confiscation scheme are to go into a justice resources fund. This is money that will be applied for the purposes of infrastructure, services and equipment for the courts. The opposition thinks, with the convincing report of a majority of people in another place, that it is unacceptable to deprive victims of crime, who should be the beneficiaries of these moneys, because the government wants to apply it towards infrastructure and services which should come out of general revenue. It is shameful.

The Attorney-General can complain all he likes, but this is very much on point. It is not acceptable that those moneys be used for a purpose when we have developed the confiscation legislation in this parliament over a number of years not only as an instrument of discipline and penalty towards those who offend but also clearly with the purpose of making provision for that to go into the victims of crime fund. However, the government says, 'We now want to take a whole lot of other assets from these people, but we're not going to put it in the victims of crime fund, we're going to take it and put it in a justice resources fund.' That is not acceptable and I will not participate in supporting the proposal of the government, third time around, to try to prop up their budget at the expense of others.

I also make the point that this fund not only has over $70 million in it—I think much more than that now—but it also has an obligation to meet with it the payment out to victims of crime. Under our victims of crime legislation, people can apply for up to $50,000—I think it is still at that limit—if they were the victim of an assault or something personal to them. It is not for property damage, but as a personal victim. Those funds should be available to them. In the course of that, there have been reports backed by this government as to how they have progressed, settled and sold out—I make the point—the victims of crimes in the Mullighan inquiry. I will not see a situation where the government is targeting one thing—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Bragg! Point of order, Attorney-General.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: This is not about the Mullighan inquiry. The remarks being made about the Mullighan inquiry people are, amongst other things, inaccurate, but we are not even talking about that, so that is not relevant at all. It is not even about the Victims of Crime Fund, and if the point the honourable member is making is that this is not the Victims of Crime Fund but another fund, the penny has dropped. I got it. So can we please get on to the rest of it, because I have understood the honourable member's point. I heard it last time we were here; I understood it then and I still understand it, but the discourse about Mullighan is not really relevant to the rest of the bill. I have heard it, and I understand the honourable member's point.

The SPEAKER: Thank you. I think your point of order was relevance, and I hope the member for Bragg has taken that on board.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am happy to, and I am thrilled that the penny has finally dropped with the Attorney. This is the third time we have been here on this issue; finally—click, click, click, click, click—the penny has dropped, and he actually understands that we do not accept that the deprivation of victims of crime from the proceeds of this windfall is not acceptable to go into this fund.

I make the point though, that one of the reasons for this is because we need more money to pay to victims of crime, and some of them have been those victims of sexual offences. So it is reasonable and it is not irrelevant; it is relevant alright, because there are funds sitting there. These people have been paid off—I think shamefully and inadequately, those who have got settlements—and we have a situation where the government is saying that we are going to have more confiscation because the funds that should be coming into the victims of crime they want to go into this dedicated fund.

Here we have an Attorney-General who says, 'I understand that. I get that; that's fine. I understood it last time.' If he understood it last time, what on earth are we doing here again? Why did the government not take notice not only of the opposition, and how shamefully inequitable that is, but of the other place, that also will not tolerate that scavenging, scrounging around, Snelling approach to pinching money from people who deserve it?

The other statement I want to make is in relation to the separation. The government has held up a number of improvements and initiatives over the last two years since the election, as to what is necessary, what has been the determination of the courts, to fix some of the confiscation law. We have at all times been prepared to deal with that, so this tactic of the government, coming in two years later with a separate bill as distinct from the separating of the offensive aspects right from the start, or at least the second time, is, I think, scandalous. These things should have been fixed up a long time ago, as they were dealt with.

But here we go, the government wants to try to sneak through its reforms with the pressure of trying to publicly say, 'Well, the opposition is being unreasonable. It's holding up these things in the bill.' We could have done this 18 months ago but, no, the Attorney-General decides he want to press on with these offensive aspects without agreeing to put through sensible reform, which we have supported throughout this debate.

It is a rather childish approach of the government. It is like being a little toddler spitting the dummy. If it does not get what it wants on something, it wants to have some other reason to go on the Leon Byner show or to be able to give some offensive spray at the opposition for doing its job—which is to identify what is appropriate and necessary, what is good reform—to throw out, or cast out, some criticism of the opposition because of the hold-up on this.

I think one of his more recent statements was to say, 'the opposition, with the support of sufficient Independents, saw fit to strip out and defeat the substance of this bill. This time they will have to vote against it as a bill if they intend the result.' What kind of nonsense is that? That is just a childish, juvenile, toddler approach to not getting its own way. We would like to put on the record that we have been absolutely clear that, when reform is appropriate, it should be addressed so that the passage of the bill can be dealt with.

The government could have signed up to that and come back with another bill to deal with this if it wanted to, but, no, it just wanted to diminish that, not let the bill go through as amended, and press ahead again. The opposition will not be moved on this, and the government, hopefully, will finally get the message that we will not be moved. The government can try all sorts of sneaky ways of packaging things up or separating them off, but we will not be moved.

Finally, I am not quite sure why the government has proposed to press on with the Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offender Assets) Amendment Bill 2012 before the miscellaneous bill, but I point out to the Attorney that this bill actually relies on the passage of the other bill to be effective, and we have not dealt with it yet. I think that has something to do with the arrogance of the government. It just presumes that it has the numbers in the lower house, so bugger the way the matter is procedurally listed: 'It doesn't matter; we'll get our way, anyway.'

For the record, the Criminal Assets Confiscation (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2012 makes provision for clause 10—which relates to section 62A of the assets bill, that is this bill, what I call the principal bill—to be amended under clause 15, which also relates to section 62A. Secondly, clause 14 of the miscellaneous bill needs to be passed before clause 18 (which relates to section 76A) can have effect.

It is just so typical of the government. It does not care what the opposition says. It does not worry about procedure or process or the orderly management of bills. That seems to be irrelevant to the government. It just seems to think, 'Well, this is what we'll shove through and they're not going to have a say on it.' However, I make the point that, if for some reason I were struck down by lightning in the next 15 minutes and the Attorney-General was shot and we had not actually got to the miscellaneous bill, then this bill would be in a bit of trouble—just a touch. So, in future, we would expect the government to treat the parliament with some respect and get it right and ensure that, at the very least in the introduction of these bills, it gets them in the right order.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (11:33): I thank the honourable member for Bragg for her contribution on this matter. I certainly do not wish her to be struck by lightning because I for one would be the poorer for not being able to have contributions from her in this place, and I certainly do not want to be shot. The honourable member's contribution on this bill, which I have now heard for the third time, is getting better. It is actually more refined than it was originally, less discursive and it is keeping more to the topic, and I applaud that.

I just want to make a few brief points. The first is that this was an election promise, and we are bound to try to bring into the parliament things which we promised the public we would bring forward. Yes, the promise was made prior to the 2010 election; however, since that time, it has been my privilege to be the Attorney, and I have tried to do what the public elected the government to do for this term, a part of which is this.

The second thing is to address the very good technical point about this being out of order with the other bill. Technically, I think the honourable member is correct although, hopefully, the two will pass from this place together and that technicality will not be of any practical significance. However, she did ask the rhetorical question: why put this one on first? There are really two answers to that, the honourable member for Bragg: one is that I think that the clerks decided they liked the sound of this one better and so it came first.

Ms Chapman: Blame the clerks!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not know, but I think the clerks actually do have some discretion. They look through the bills, they decide which ones they like the sound of and they—

Ms CHAPMAN: Madam Speaker, the Attorney-General has just made a statement that, personally, I think is insulting to the clerks of the parliament.

The SPEAKER: Thank you.

Ms CHAPMAN: I make the point of order, and I think that the Attorney-General should apologise for trying to diffuse and deflect the blame of something which is entirely his responsibility.

The SPEAKER: I am not sure that we have a standing order that relates to the clerks; however, thank you, member for Bragg.

Ms CHAPMAN: We should have, and he should apologise.

The SPEAKER: The clerks do not look particularly traumatised, but perhaps you had better be careful in your—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Indeed.

The SPEAKER: —accusations, Attorney-General.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I do not believe there is a standing order reflecting on the clerks, but can I say to the clerks: if I have in any way made either of you feel uncomfortable I sincerely apologise and withdraw. Also, if what I am saying is right, please let me know because you will help me out with the member for Bragg.

The other reason that this bill came on first is that in preparation for today I did look back over what had passed on previous occasions, and I suspected that this would be the one of the two that the member for Bragg would be most critical of.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: If we can finish this shortly, we can go. This is the one that I thought the honourable member would be most critical of and, Madam Speaker, to be perfectly frank with you, I thought that, as I was going to get a hiding, I might as well get it first up, so I decided to take my medicine up-front rather than have to sit here becoming more and more anxious about what would happen when we got to this bill. I thought, 'Rightio, just front up and cop it.' That is what I have done and that is why it came first, aside from the other speculation I entered into.

The business about the justice fund, I get it and understand what the honourable member is saying; we just have a difference of opinion about it, that is all. The honourable member would be aware that the Victims of Crime Fund is an important fund. I do not disagree with her at all about that. I do disagree with some of her remarks about the way in which we have handled the Mullighan people but, never mind, that was a diversion.

I do not know if the honourable member has had any communication with people in the justice system, but I do not think they have the same hostility towards this provision the honourable member does. I think they would actually welcome having some dedicated resource they could have regard to. We have a difference of opinion about that, so I guess we have to agree to disagree on that particular topic.

However, I do acknowledge that the Victims of Crime Fund is very important and I acknowledge that we should be doing everything we can to assist victims, and I am happy at any time to sit down with the member for Bragg and talk about how we can do better with what we have in the Victims—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Indeed, and that was a terrible affair. It is an ongoing matter, so I will not comment about the detail, but I was personally shocked about that. I do not think I really should comment any further, but that is a terrible matter.

I gather from what the honourable member has had to say that perhaps the second bill (which logically should have been the first perhaps) will receive a warmer welcome than the one we are presently dealing with, so I will let that go a bit. The honourable member referred to me giving what she described as an offensive spray to the opposition for doing their job; I guess that is a fair cop in this place. She also introduced the analogy of a toddler wandering around spitting a dummy out and so forth. I would like to offer an analogy to the honourable member, since she has picked up on the toddler theme, and it goes something like this.

The honourable member talks about how legislation that the government prepares receives 'improvement' in another place. That is a favourite word of the Hon. Mr Wade. He rather styles himself as an 'improvalist': he 'improves' things frequently. From our point of view, having spent a lot of time on a lot of legislation, I think the toddler analogy is pretty good. If you spend years, literally, working on a piece of legislation and it is the legislative equivalent of a Titian or a da Vinci or a Rubens, and you carry it lovingly down to another place and the toddlers come out with the crayons and put buck teeth on it and moustaches and eye patches, it is a bit disconcerting.

The Hon. S.W. Key: Driller Jet Armstrong.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, a bit like Driller Jet Armstrong. Actually, that is a good point, that is a real-life analogy.

Ms Chapman: Armstrong?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Driller Jet Armstrong. You might recall he interfered with Mr Bannon Sr's painting some years ago. I think it ill behoves the opposition to talk about 'improvements' because that is not always the case.

Anyway, I acknowledge that, under all of this, there are really two issues. The first is that we made a promise at the election which we are attempting to fulfil; and, secondly, the opposition does not agree with the discrete fund for the provision of justice services. That is a philosophical objection, which I acknowledge and respect but it is one we are not going to agree on. I guess it is a matter of the other place doing whatever it is going to do with this in due course and we will see what the legislation looks like later on.

I do not think there is really much else we can say about this. We have a philosophical objection to the justice fund. We have what, to me, is still a mysterious objection to the idea of basically bankrupting repeat serial drug traffickers. Quite frankly, I do not know why anyone has any sympathy for them and why people are wringing their hands and worrying about these poor criminals who might be losing their assets in circumstances where these people are peddling misery in the community at enormous profit to themselves.

They are consuming enormous resources in the health sector and enormous resources in corrections—not enough resources in corrections, because they are not there long enough. Meanwhile, when they get out of gaol, they go home to the Maserati and the li-lo next to the swimming pool and the rather large glass with the umbrella in it and the multicoloured drink, and it is all good. It is not bad: you spend a couple of years growing turnips at Her Majesty's pleasure—it is not the best accommodation in the world, but there are worse places—but then you go back to business as usual and back into the swimming pool.

For the life of me, I cannot see why the opposition has a problem with saying that these characters should not be able to do that. I just do not get it—I just do not. Anyway, that is their point of view, and they are making it clear enough that they do have sympathy for these people. They do think that repeat serious drug offenders deserve a light touch. That is fine: I am not saying they are not entitled to that view, but I do not understand why they have that view. That is the bit I do not get. Anyway, never mind. That is what it is about. We clearly have a difference of opinion, Madam Speaker.

I will finish where I started. I appreciate the honourable member having been quite succinct in her remarks and, aside from wounding me several times with savage criticism, having been pretty much to the point. I wish the bill a speedy passage.

Bill read a second time.

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