HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-02-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CRIMINAL ASSETS CONFISCATION (PRESCRIBED DRUG OFFENDERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Standing Orders Suspension

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (16:15): I move:

That standing and sessional orders be and remain so far suspended as to enable the introduction without notice and the passage through all stages of the Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offenders) Amendment Bill before the Address in Reply is adopted.

The SPEAKER: As there is not an absolute majority of members in the house, 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) (16:18): 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) (16:18): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Recent events in South Australia have thrown a spotlight on the totally unacceptable behaviour of criminal gangs. The community wants action, so does the government. Opposition obstructionism will be judged very harshly should it occur. The government's commitment to remaining tough on organised crime has never waivered. We have, however, been thwarted in the last parliament by the tactics of the opposition, who have blocked, deferred, referred to committees—

Ms CHAPMAN: Point of order: the Attorney-General is laying out for the parliament the merits upon which we should support this bill and the reason it is being introduced and the like, not to enter into a debate about what may have occurred in previous debates on other bills. I would ask you to bring him into order.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Bragg. Attorney-General, just keep in mind the member for Bragg's point of order. However, it is a new debate; it is being introduced and reintroduced again, so please proceed.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Indeed, but if I can say through you, Madam Speaker, that given the fact that we have taken the rather unusual step of seeking and obtaining a suspension of standing orders to proceed with legislation today, which is identical to legislation introduced in the previous parliament—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —I thought it was incumbent upon me to place on the record why we are doing this. Once I have placed on the record why, I will be able to proceed. I have nearly completed what I had to say about those matters.

Ms CHAPMAN: As a further point of order, the Attorney-General has spoken through you, obviously for my attention. Let me say this: allowing the Attorney-General to offer some spray of discontent about what the opposition will or will not do when he does not even know what we are going to do, given that we do not even know what he is out to present to us (we have just had the tabled to us and he is, of course, going to explain to us what he is going to do), I expect that you will, of course, give me the same leniency in reply.

The SPEAKER: Certainly, member for Bragg, you will be the second reading speech also. Attorney.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As I was saying, other bills previously have been blocked, deferred, referred to committees, or dramatically changed, and the bills of which I speak were introduced to tighten the noose around the neck of criminal gangs.

In order to combat the problem posed by serious organised criminal groups, the government is again putting forward a suite of measures. Some of these measures are new, but many are bills placed before the last parliament. These will be restored or reintroduced. These measures do not stand alone. They are intended to form an interlocking web of complementary legislative initiatives that attack the basis of criminal organisations, the motives for their conduct, and their capacity to intimidate and victimise those who would give evidence against them.

These bills are as follows: the Statutes Amendment (Criminal Intelligence Bill 2010; the Summary Offences (Weapons) Amendment Bill 2010; the Criminal Law (Sentencing)(Sentencing Consideration) Amendment Bill 2011, each of which will be restored in the upper house; this bill, the Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offenders) Amendment Bill 2011, which I am moving again in this house today; plus two further bills of which I have already given notice.

It is important to understand that, in aggregate, these bills constitute a far more effective package than the sum of their parts. I recognise that it is unusual to seek a suspension of standing orders to immediately introduce legislation, but there are particular reasons why this is appropriate today.

First of all, the parliament has had full notice of all particulars of this legislation since the introduction of an identical bill in the last parliament, which was introduced on 18 May 2011. Nobody can be taken by surprise. When the bill was last before the parliament almost all of its operative provisions were effectively neutered in the other place. The government does not accept that this is a reasonable response, and it is determined to destroy the financial incentive at the heart of organised crime.

Secondly, this bill is an essential element of a package of measures directed towards organised crime and, as such, has an extremely high priority. Now that the parliament has resumed, we see no reason why we should not commence immediately with this critical work. Every day that this parliament fails to pass these interconnected legislative measures is a day that life for organised criminals in South Australia is much easier than it should be. None of us, as responsible legislators, can possibly be content with this objectionable state of affairs being permitted to continue when it is entirely within our power to bring it to an end. The people of South Australia are watching this parliament and look to us for strong support for community values and strong legislative support for our police in the difficult task of combating organised criminal groups.

I will now move to a more detailed explanation of this bill. I seek leave to insert the remainder of the second reading explanation into Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

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 s 32A(1) of the Drugs Misuse Act of that State or is declared under s 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, three 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 r 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 setting 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.

Pecuniary Penalty Provisions

The Bill also amends the pecuniary penalty provisions of the Act. The necessity for this amendment arose directly from the decision of the Full Court in the case of DPP v George [2008] SASC 330. The appellant George was convicted of an offence of producing cannabis. The subject of the charge was 12 mature cannabis plants and 20 seedlings with roots attached. The plants were being grown hydroponically in a shed on his residential property in Seacombe Gardens. He was also convicted of knowingly abstracting (stealing) electricity. He was fined $2,500 for both charges. Under the law applicable at the time the maximum penalty for this offending would have been 25 years imprisonment. Under current law, 10 plants is a trafficable quantity and he was over that, not counting seedlings, so there would be a presumption of sale.

The DPP intended to pursue the defendant under the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act. Accordingly, a restraining order was placed over the residential property. After conviction, the defendant applied for an order excluding the property from forfeiture. In the meantime, the DPP applied for a pecuniary penalty order forfeiting a sum of money equivalent to the defendant's interest in the property. The house was valued at $255,000 with a mortgage of $164,731. It follows that the pecuniary penalty would have been about $90,000. It can be accepted that the defendant would have to sell the property to pay the pecuniary penalty.

The question then arose whether the court had a discretion whether to impose a pecuniary penalty order or not. On the face of it, the legislation seemed to say that there was no discretion. The legislation says that the court must make a pecuniary penalty order about the proceeds of a crime or an instrument of crime. All had assumed hitherto that 'must' meant 'must' and that was that. The magistrate below had threaded a way out of what he thought to be an injustice by holding that the house and land were not instruments of crime. That was an ingenious argument and the Supreme Court on appeal divided 2/1 on the facts, holding that the property was an instrument.

But White J, with whom Doyle CJ and Vanstone J agreed on point, said that must did not mean must. There was a discretion after all. The key passage was:

Moreover, the construction for which the DPP and the Attorney-General contend has the potential to bring the administration of justice into disrepute. This is likely to engender a lack of respect for such proceedings and the authority of the courts conducting them is likely to be undermined. The DPP could, for example, take the attitude before a court hearing an application under ss 47 or 76 that its decision will be immaterial, and conduct the proceedings accordingly. It is inimical to proper respect of judicial authority for one party to an application before the court to be able to take such an attitude.

I referred earlier to the absence of any provision in the CAC Act which would enable a court to take account of, or to ameliorate, the harsh consequences of a PPO or the interests of others in the subject property. Nor is there any provision enabling the court to take account of the public interest in the way in which s 76(1)(c) requires in relation to statutory forfeiture. The absence of such provisions is stark if s 95(1) is construed as obliging a court, upon satisfaction of the specified matters, to make a PPO. It is difficult to identify any reason why Parliament should have considered provisions to that effect to be appropriate in relation to forfeiture orders, but not in relation to PPOs. Similarly, it is difficult to identify any reason why Parliament should have intended consideration of the public interest to be relevant in relation to applications for exemption from statutory forfeiture, but not in relation to PPOs. The absence of provisions permitting a court to ameliorate the harsh consequences of a PPO, or to consider the public interest, loses much of its significance however if s 95(1) is construed as vesting a discretionary power, rather than imposing an obligation. (emphasis added)

The lesson was plain. 'Must' does not really mean 'must' because of the harsh, arbitrary and unjust consequences it would bring. 'Must', said the Court, really means 'may'. The Act is amended to fix this. This State should not have on the books a law that is thought to be so unfair and unjust that a Court has to strain the ordinary use of language in that way in order to bring about a fair result. The amendment gives the court a discretion to impose a pecuniary penalty in relation to instruments of crime, just as it does in relation to the forfeiture of instruments of crime. That discretion is informed by an inclusive list of factors identical to those legislated in relation to the forfeiture of instruments of crime.

Restraining Orders

In the course of deciding the main issue in DPP v George, the court, (particularly the contribution of White J) points out another technicality that poses problems. In summary:

The Act contains provision for what is known as 'automatic forfeiture'. The essence of the scheme is that property subject to a restraining order will be forfeited by operation of law after the expiry of a certain time period after conviction.

The only way for a defendant (or any other interested party) to escape this process it to apply for and win an order excluding property from the restraining order.

White J pointed out that a literal reading of the Act could say that the property will be automatically (and irretrievably) forfeited even though an application to exclude that property is on foot and has yet to be resolved. He regards such an outcome (with considerable justification) as unfair and unjust.

White J held that this problem deserved the attention of the Parliament. His Honour did not observe that the legislation permits a person in this position to apply to the court for an 'extension order', which has the effect of postponing the automatic forfeiture. But that omission is in itself telling. The system is just too complicated. And the necessity for a separate extension order is not obvious. If the applicant for an exclusion order knew about it, he or she would surely apply for it and, equally surely, a court would grant it routinely in order to avoid the injustice to which White J referred.

The problem is fixed in this Bill. The way in which it is done is to abolish what used to be called extension orders as a separate phenomenon and instead provide that any person may apply for the exclusion of property from forfeiture and, when that application is made, the forfeiture of property is subject to an extended period terminating when the application for exclusion is finally determined.

Other Amendments

South Australian Police and the DPP asked for an amendment to the Act so that a person who is the beneficiary of a discretionary decision to discount a sentence because of the consequences of forfeiture cannot also be the beneficiary of an amelioration of forfeiture for the same reason. In other words, the defendant cannot get the same benefit twice. This has been done, except for those who have co-operated with law enforcement in cases of serious and organised crime, who may get a sentence discount for their co-operation and also a discretionary form of relief from total forfeiture under the prescribed drug trafficker scheme contained in this Bill. The reason for that is good public policy - every encouragement should be given and every lever should be applied to those who are in a position to inform on serious and organised criminals.

The Bill makes minor amendments to clarify the provisions relating to the forfeiture of a security given by a defendant or other person on the making an application for an exclusion order.

I commend the Bill to Members and expect full support for this important legislative measure.

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. Of particular note is the insertion of new subsection (2), providing that a reference in the principal Act to an indictable offence includes an indictable offence of a kind that is required to be prosecuted, and dealt with by the Magistrates Court, as a summary offence under a provision of any Act, rather than the current limitation of an offence under Part 5 Division 2 of the Controlled Substances Act 1984. The definition of extension order is deleted consequentially to clause 20.

6—Amendment of section 6—Meaning of effective control

This clause makes an amendment of a statute law revision nature, to ensure consistency of language.

7—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.

8—Amendment of section 10—Application of Act

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

9—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.

10—Amendment of section 34—Court may exclude property from a 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.

Subclause (2) makes a statute law revision amendment consistent with clause 6.

Subclause (3) prevents property being excluded from a restraining order on application by a person convicted of the offence to which the restraining order relates where the convicted person has had the possible forfeiture of the property taken into account in sentencing for the offence.

11—Amendment of section 46—Cessation of restraining orders

This clause amends section 46(4) of the principal Act to reflect the fact that restrained property may vest in the Crown under an Act other than the principal Act.

12—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).

13—Amendment of section 48—Instrument substitution declarations

This clause makes a minor amendment to section 48 of the principal Act to distinguish between forfeiture orders made under section 47(3) and those made under section 47(1).

14—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.

15—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).

16—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).

17—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.

18—Insertion of section 62A

This clause inserts new section 62A into the principal Act. That provision provides that, if a court has taken a forfeiture of a person's property into account in sentencing the person, the person cannot then apply for an exclusion order or compensation order in respect of the property (unless the cooperation provision in proposed section 59A applies).

19—Amendment of section 74—Forfeiting restrained property without forfeiture order if person convicted of serious offence

This clause is consequential to clause 20.

20—Substitution of section 75

This clause substitutes a new section 75 of the principal Act, replacing the current 15 month extension orders with an extended period which will apply automatically when an application to exclude property has been made, but not finally determined, at the end of the period of 6 months after conviction (when automatic forfeiture would otherwise occur).

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

This clause amends section 76 to broaden the range of people who can apply for an order excluding property (currently only the convicted person can apply), to ensure the provision works properly in relation to securities given under section 38 or 44 and to prevent exclusion of property owned by or under the effective control of a prescribed drug offender (other than protected property).

22—Insertion of sections 76A and 76B

This clause inserts a provision similar to the provision in clause 17 allowing for exclusion from forfeiture based on cooperation with a law enforcement agency and a provision similar to clause 18 providing that, if a court has taken a forfeiture of a person's property into account in sentencing the person, the person cannot then apply for exclusion of the property under this Division (unless the cooperation provision in proposed section 76A applies).

23—Amendment of section 95—Making pecuniary penalty orders

This clause substitutes subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) of section 95 of the principal Act. New subsection (1) ensures that mandatory pecuniary penalty orders relate only to benefits derived from crime while new subsection (2) provides the court with a discretion to make such an order in relation to an instrument of crime. New subsection (3) sets out matters the court may have regard to when determining whether to make an order under subsection (2). Proposed subsection (4) ensures that the court is not prevented from making a pecuniary penalty order merely because some other confiscation order has been made in relation to the offence.

Section 95(7) is consequentially amended to apply only to benefits.

24—Amendment of section 96—Additional application for a pecuniary penalty order

This clause makes minor statute law revision amendments to simplify section 96.

25—Insertion of section 98A

This clause inserts new section 98A into the principal Act, which provides that, for the purposes of the Division, a court may treat as property of a person any property that is, in the court's opinion, subject to the person's effective control.

26—Amendment of section 99—Determining penalty amounts

This clause clarifies references in section 99 of the principal Act.

27—Amendment of section 104—Benefits and instruments already the subject of pecuniary penalty

This clause amends section 104 of the principal Act to include reference to instruments.

28—Repeal of section 105

This clause repeals section 105 of the principal Act and is consequential upon the insertion of section 98A into the Act by clause 25 of this measure.

29—Amendment of section 106—Effect of property vesting in an insolvency trustee

This clause amends section 106 of the principal Act to ensure it applies in relation to instruments as well as benefits of crime.

30—Amendment of section 107—Reducing penalty amounts to take account of forfeiture and proposed forfeiture

This clause amends section 107 of the principal Act to insert new subsection (2), setting out reductions to penalty amounts under pecuniary penalty orders that relate to instruments of crime where the instruments have been forfeited in relation to the offence to which the order relates, or where an application for such forfeiture has been made.

31—Amendment of section 108—Reducing penalty amounts to take account of fines etc

This clause amends section 108 of the principal Act to ensure it encompasses instruments of crime.

32—Amendment of section 149—Interpretation

This clause amends the definition of property-tracking document in section 149 of the principal Act, to refer, for the sake of consistency, to property owned by or subject to the effective control of a person, rather than simply the property of the person.

33—Substitution of section 203

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

34—Amendment of heading

This clause is consequential to clause 36.

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

This clause is consequential to clause 36.

36—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.

37—Amendment of section 219—Consent orders

This clause makes a consequential amendment to section 219 of the principal Act to reflect changes made by this measure.

38—Substitution of section 224

This clause substitutes section 224 of the principal Act to reflect the changes made by this measure as they relate to prescribed drug offenders, and to include forfeiture, or pecuniary penalty orders, under the law of other relevant jurisdictions as matters to which a sentencing court must not (under new paragraph (b)) or must (under paragraph (c)) have regard to in determining sentence.

The clause also inserts new section 224A which regulates the release of sensitive information relating to cooperation with law enforcement agencies.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (16:26): Leave is agreed to on the basis that—if you want to hear us at all on this, Madam Speaker—the Attorney has given an assurance that the bill is exactly as per the previous bill. On that basis, we agree.

I indicate that I will be the lead and only speaker on this bill for the opposition. I thank the Attorney for confirming that the bill that he has introduced today is the same that he had introduced last year, and I will be referring to that shortly. I will assume, having the rather truncated procedure on this matter, that the supporting second reading explanation of the Attorney, commencing from 'Prescribed Drug Offenders', is similar to that which had previously been presented to the parliament in support of the bill. On that basis, I do not propose to go into a lot of detail on the substance of the bill.

What I will say to the house is this: the opposition came here today to support the government's suspension of standing orders, of which we had received notice from the Attorney. As I am sure members here in the house have heard over the last two weeks in the shameful expose of the circumstances of fear in which our community lives as a result of organised crime, and as the people of South Australia would know, it was the government's intention that it was going to revisit certain legislation and introduce some new serious and organised crime legislation in respect of what has been commonly known as the anti-association legislation.

I want to say to members of the house that the government have been quite duplicitous in their presentation of the facts surrounding the support. The opposition will not impede the swift passage of this bill to another place where, in a previous form, it received detailed attention and we consider had been substantially improved, and we maintain that position. They have also been playing games and playing politics about what is presented here today.

Members will have heard the opening address of the government through His Excellency today about the important priority the government is going to put on a safer community. The government indicated that it would be moving the suspending of standing orders, as I say, to give priority to these gang laws.

When the Liberal Party, the parliamentary opposition, offered to suspend standing orders, 13 days ago, in a letter to the Attorney-General, the government could have, at that stage, indicated that it wanted to give the criminal assets legislation some priority. In fact the Liberal Party offered at that time to expedite that process, what was described in the correspondence dated 1 February as the serious and organised crime legislative package that had been put out for consultation on 21 August 2011 (months and months ago), and an offer was explicitly outlined to send to the opposition a copy of the draft bills, a copy of all submissions in the consultation on the package and, thirdly, briefings to our shadow attorney-general, the Hon. Stephen Wade, and the Liberal spokesperson for legal affairs in the House of Assembly, namely myself. The correspondence clearly indicated:

If this request is acceded to the Liberal Opposition will support giving priority to the bills over the Address-In-Reply debate. The Opposition is happy to receive the draft bills, submissions and briefings on a confidential basis, embargoed pending the tabling of the bills in Parliament.

That could not have been clearer. That was 13 days ago. So, for the Attorney-General to come in today and pretend that he is on some great rush of adrenalin to initiate a suspending of standing orders to bring protection to the people of South Australia in this allegedly meritorious law reform is utter codswallop. The only response that had been received was a letter of acknowledgement of the correspondence received on 6 February. The next piece of information, forwarded on 6 February, was an email between staff members, and I will leave it as general as that. That email stated, in relation to the prescribed motor vehicles legislation, otherwise known as the monkey bike bill:

In relation to the above Bill, it is anticipated that this will once again go to a Deadlock Conference. In order to speed up the process, I would be grateful if your Party could articulate its final concerns with the Bill in writing...

Etc. That was a response on that matter saying, 'Well, look, we need to detail this. It was left over from last year. We'd like to have it sorted out.' I have no problem with that at all. So, they were obviously alive and kicking in the Attorney-General's Department at that stage and they wanted to talk about the process of the parliament. Then yesterday, after the commencement of the joint party meeting of the opposition, at 3.37 an email came through to our new whip's adviser's office to advise our shadow attorney-general that:

I have been advised by the Premier's Office that due to the urgency of this matter, after Question Time tomorrow we will be suspending standing orders to re-introduce and immediately debate the Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offenders) Amendment Bill. Thanks.

That is it. So, I do not know whether the Premier's office is speaking to the Attorney-General's office, or what is going on over there, but less than 24 hours before this parliament resumes we have a missive from an agent, purportedly on behalf of Mr Conlon's office, representing somehow or other some message from the Premier's office, that this is what is going to happen.

The government is only interested in this stunt of trying to pretend that it is actually producing a folder of protection for the people of South Australia. It wanted to try to ambush the opposition less than 24 hours before the house resumed with the notification of this demand, when it had two weeks' notice—or invitation—from the opposition to advance the progress on all the bills.

The government's behaviour took on childish proportions when, in the midst of that 13-day period, the government sought to engage the opposition on what would have to be described as the far more less important issue of monkey bikes, of which I think there are only a few left that actually need to be dealt with in Australia. Nevertheless, this is the priority of the Attorney-General. While Rome is burning he is out there saying that we need to regulate against monkey bikes—hello? I would probably be overwhelmed if the predecessor were here giving me this because, in a way, I suppose I would expect it. The Atkinson era is, of course, gone, but here I see the Attorney-General with a bit less hair, he could probably grow a foot, add a carnation, and what would we have? We have it all back again. It has all come back.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: That's unkind.

Ms CHAPMAN: It may be unkind to the member for Croydon, but the bottom line is that it is all back here. This is exactly the sort of behaviour that we would expect from the member for Croydon: 'I'm going to punch them,' Eliot Ness, and all that other codswallop we heard during the Atkinson era. We now have it back again. I expected more, the people of South Australia expected more, and certainly the parliament should expect more. I know the legal profession expect more, but what do we have? We have the same trumped up, thin, shallow, insincere, inadequate response from the government to deal with a very serious problem.

We see the priorities of the government exposed just on infrastructure in the law and order arena. Any members of parliament can go down and examine the new Taj Mahal as the new headquarters for the police. I think they have two now—very nice. Members can go and examine the new headquarters for SA Water and the new headquarters for transport, all of which have related to the flogging off of various buildings and assets by this government. They are then put in flashy new rented accommodation.

What does the Courts Administration Authority get? What do the people who work in the courts get? They get the same old cobwebs, the same old crumbling infrastructure. They do not even get a decent court. They do not even get safe premises that cover occupational health and safety. In reality, that is the level of respect that this government has for people who try, day in, day out, to protect the community against those who breach the law, to deal with them fairly and justly, and to make sure that there is a forum in which people can have confidence that they will be dealt with fairly and justly, and, of course, to imprison, fine or punish those who go beyond acceptable conduct, particularly, obviously, illegal conduct. However, they get nothing. They get dumped down in the same old building—left there.

I would have thought that a difference between the old Atkinson era and the new era might have been, for example, that the new Attorney-General would at least come out and say, 'They only want half a million dollars—$750,000—for a business plan to actually work on a new courts building.' They do not even get that.

The government announced in this year's budget that it would give half a million dollars for a new business plan to work out where it is going to put its core library. It has that, and we have plenty of money for all these other things but, sadly, the courts are stuck with the Keith hospital: at the bottom of the barrel—absolutely missed out completely.

This is the current Attorney-General's fifth attempt at getting media coverage on this proposal—this great network of new law that was going to solve the problem and provide safety for the people of South Australia—because it was announced during elections in 2010 and a further three times during 2011 on 16 May, on 29 July and 15 September. Each announcement on this legislation generated less and less interest from a perceptive media who knew that the announcement was merely a deflection from the many problems this government had already created. The government's claims on urgency lack credibility and are clearly exposed for what they are.

Mr Marshall: Speak of the devil.

Ms CHAPMAN: Speak of the dead, yes. There has been absolutely no action on this legislation since it was received in this place on 28 September 2011. That is four months ago, and not a single thing has been done on this piece of legislation.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: There was nothing left.

Ms CHAPMAN: The Attorney interrupts to say that there was nothing left. What rubbish! It had wise consideration by another house and the appropriate addition of two important improvements to this bill, but it was back here, sitting here, waiting around, collecting dust and cobwebs. Meanwhile Rome is burning, the bikie gangs are out there, everything is happening out there but, nevertheless, after four months, not a thing. Diddly-squat. Nothing.

The government is trying to feign this urgency as a distraction for its absolutely lazy approach to the legislation, hoping it will go away. With Christmas and car races, there will be all sorts of other sideshows happening and we will not notice—as if the people who are in the firing line here will not notice! Well, they do all right, and I think the media have recognised that we now have a situation where the Attorney-General is so arrogant that his pride gets in the way of his progressing important legislation.

We should have been dealing with this. If they made that promise back in the election of 2010, they should certainly have honoured that, having introduced the legislation, and got on with it. When it had consideration and came back here in September last year, they did nothing with it. The bona fides is a complete fraud on the parliament. The media have woken up to it. The public are all awake to it. They have just thrown this back.

And the arrogance! Not only has the other place actually made significant improvements to this bill—and I am going to refer to them in a moment—so arrogant are they that they are just going to throw in the same bill with no amendments, no changes, no consideration. There is no, 'Shall we look at this seriously and realise whether in fact we might have made a mistake? Could there be any compromise? No, blow compromise, blow any consideration of what they've done, all of those wise men and women of the upper house. Put the fingers up to them. We're just going to progress ahead; we will just throw this in.'

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Croydon, you are warned.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Thank you very much, madam. A couple more, please.

Ms CHAPMAN: So what we have of course is all this spin happening again, this revolutionary new team. Rann, Foley and Atkinson were all going to disappear into the dust and we were going to have this fresh, new team of cordiality, of civility in the parliament, respecting each other as members of parliament. Remember all that piffle that they came out with to suggest that this was going to be a reformed government? We heard it again from His Excellency this morning about a code of conduct. A code of conduct is coming in.

I can remember I think in the first year that I came into parliament, there was discussion by the then premier that we were going to have a code of conduct—very important. The member for Fisher was appointed as the chair of a body of inquiry to look into codes of conduct around the world, principles of behaviour or whatever you want to call it, but basically codes of behaviour, expectation of what the public would have as our electors, as our constituents, and what we would have to each other, issues in relation to honesty, disclosure and all the things that go with being a person in public office such as conflict of interest—you name it.

In fact, I seem to recall that Hon. Rob Lawson QC, was a member of that, and I think even the current attorney might have been a member of that group. We duly considered all of the different codes of conduct around the world and there were some very interesting ones. I will not detail them today, but France springs to mind. They have a rather interesting rule about how you cannot be prosecuted in public office—even if you do very bad things—until you retire. Not surprisingly, some of them hang on for dear life. We did consider that. Some people hang on to public office in France and that might be something that we would consider, but we dismissed it because we felt that that was inappropriate and that the parliament should not be some sanctuary for those who do the wrong thing. They need to front up to the law; so we dismissed that.

So, we went through this process. I think it was quite a good working committee. We came up with a resolution about what should happen. I am pretty sure it was unanimous. It came into the parliament, it was reported, and eight years later, dead as a doornail, it has never seen the light of day. The member for Fisher—

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Point of order: I am just wondering what the relevance of this part of the debate is to the bill before the house.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Croydon. We have been very far-ranging in our comments today in our speeches, so I will allow the debate to continue.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Had the member for Croydon been listening intently at the commencement of the address and the challenges taken about content, he might have appreciated that. Let me just say this: a list of principles to guide us, a code of conduct disappeared, never saw the light of day, but the member for Fisher, courageously, brought back either a motion or a bill to incorporate them into the parliament, in what must have been private members' time, to try and present to the government an opportunity for them to pick this up, because, obviously, the premier completely ignored it. He had a few of his own code of conduct issues at the time, and had a few people sitting alongside him who are now gone, who might have caused him some embarrassment if he looked through any number of these principles. Nevertheless, they never saw the light of day. So, great credit to the member for Fisher for at least trying to bring it to the parliament's attention and say—

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms CHAPMAN: —he said it, he wanted to have it, he set up the inquiry, we have done the inquiry, we have done the work, and then he has just shoved it under the table, we need to have this open. So, I was very pleased to hear the new Premier announce this morning under this new regime that there is going to be some era of enlightenment in the commitment to what we are doing, including a commitment to make safe neighbourhoods, and to introduce this tranche of legislation.

In his contribution, His Excellency outlined this great vision—or I think someone described it as a 'squint'—of the Premier for the people of South Australia. When he outlines, with the suggestion that this is some new era of behaviour and of conduct, and then has his own Attorney-General go out there and dance in the media to try and pretend that he gives a rats about the people of South Australia's safety against organised crime, it is laughable, if one appreciates the offers that have been made by the opposition to bring these things on.

Let me just say that we are not alone in the government's pretence that the advance of these four bills—the reintroduction of a new amended serious and organised crime bill, and dealing with weapons intelligence and drug offenders confiscation law, if I can summarise them in that way—is some kind of remedy to the perils that are out there. Let me remind the members of the house that under the last ten years of this Labor government, Labor's rhetoric and poor strategy has made the gang situation worse. Let us place on the record some of that. There are more members of these gangs. In the three years since the serious and organised crime legislation, outlaw motorcycle gang membership is up by 10 per cent—250 to 274. There are more gangs in that 10 years.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: How many more?

Ms CHAPMAN: This is not for you, Atko. The New Boyz street gang has transformed into the Comancheros. There are no fewer bikie fortresses. They are more dangerous. Why? Because the internal controls have weakened. There is more public and more risky behaviour and there is clearly more fear. South Australians walking locally at night feel the least safe of any other state and the crime rate is following the national trend. South Australia's homicide rate is the equal highest of any state.

Mr Marshall: Shame!

Ms CHAPMAN: For the government to try and come out and say, 'We care about the people of South Australia,' to protect them against these frightening statistics and the reality that flows from them is absolutely laughable. Even Mr Pallaras QC, the DPP—

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Point of order: I really do not want to interrupt the honourable member too much, because she appears to be in a stream of consciousness which bears little relationship to the particular bills in front of us, but if it goes on for a period of time I am wondering if all of us are going to have the opportunity to get some popcorn. I do not want to miss any of this but I do want to be able to take it in properly and I know that it is disorderly to eat popcorn in here but—

The SPEAKER: It certainly is, Attorney-General. If you are asking if you can eat popcorn in here, no, you can't.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Very well.

The SPEAKER: So you can sit down. Member for Bragg, could I ask you to go back to the bill, please?

Ms CHAPMAN: Mr Pallaras QC has made comment about the government's reforms in these areas. This is one of the four tranches of reforms that the Attorney-General says that he is in blistering anxiety to rush into the parliament with haste for the protection of South Australia.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Here we are.

Ms CHAPMAN: I am, and Mr Pallaras QC has seen through it. He says to get tough means absolutely nothing, it means making a lot of noise. 'What we need to do is to get effective.' 'Effective' is what he says.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Yes, stop farmers having guns!

The SPEAKER: Member for Croydon, can you behave or leave?

Ms CHAPMAN: The situation is this: under the Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offenders) Amendment Bill 2012 which is before us, notwithstanding that the opposition had offered an opportunity for the government to bring all its legislation in and for us to deal with it, we have not even seen a draft of this mysterious new serious and organised crime bill. We have asked for it. The Attorney-General says we are going to get it tomorrow. It has been out for consultation since August. They are in such a damn hurry to try and make sure they protect the people of South Australia that they want to show us.

They want our response. They want our support. They want us to go with them with this, and we did last time. We said, 'Listen, you might end up in the High Court. You might stuff it up. It might be outside the bounds of what is constitutional. It might be a very expensive passage to go via the High Court.' We warned them of all that but the man with the carnation dug his heels in. Off he went racing with this—'This is going to be the great salvation'—and we ended up in the High Court. It cost us a fortune.

Here we are and we have notice of another 15 claims against that legislation. We could be in the High Court for another 10 years but do you think they care? No, this is their great salvation.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: This is their great answer—

The SPEAKER: Member for Norwood, behave.

Ms CHAPMAN: —so that is what they want to do. They want to come in and push through the next lot. They do not want scrutiny. They do not want to have any support from us. They just want to be able to claim that we are being obstructive and difficult.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Which you are.

Ms CHAPMAN: The member for Croydon does not listen to the full debate. He just wants to interrupt. Go and pick another carnation, for goodness sake, and put it in your buttonhole and give one to the new attorney because he is turning into you. I have suggested if he grow another foot and get a little bit less hair he will be right on track. You know, I could have listened to this speech this morning and thought that you had written it, member for Croydon. I would give you credit for that. It was an absolute pearler.

Let me go back to the substance of this bill, though, because the members ought to be aware that the opposition members were actually and have consistently been supportive of legislation which confiscates assets of criminals, to obtain assets of criminals, and furthermore of unexplained wealth legislation. We have been very supportive of that. The two things that offend the opposition, and I think most sensible people out in the community (including the Law Society, of course, which thinks that the whole thing is a dog's breakfast and which goes much further) are, first, that, in depriving citizens who have received their proceeds of crime, even where the instrument of the crime is lawfully acquired, is a step too far.

We simply say that there needs to be some nexus, and, in the absence of that, we do not support it. In fact, in another place in previous debates the upper house saw the wisdom of that and it maintained that that was very important as well. So, it is completely erroneous, and I think mischievous of the government, to go out publicly and say, 'The opposition is being obstructive.' We have supported this type of legislation before; we will again provided they maintain that nexus.

The other aspect which we find extraordinary the government would even come back with an attempt to push through is that, instead of the proceeds of crime, which under other existing legislation goes into the Victims of Crime Fund to support those people who have claims quite properly for compensation for injuries and loss that they have incurred as a result of a criminal offence, the government under this legislation wants a new fund. It wants to put it into a fund to make it available for its own government purposes—whether that is to prop up the bits of the court that is falling down, or to provide some extra new lights in a courtroom, or whether it is to provide for some cost of the DPP's office, I do not know.

What the government wants to do is to take that money and use it for its general revenue responsibility in the area of law and order in this state, and we say that that is fundamentally wrong. That is an attempt by the government to absolve it from partial responsibility of funding this important area. I think that law and order takes only about 4 per cent of the state budget. It is just a narrow little bit as it is. The government should understand what its responsibility is.

I noted what His Excellency said this morning, which we know, of course, is just prepared by the Premier's office. Interestingly, he outlined his commitment, and I will read this. It says:

The government believes that our public discourse should be more civil—that we should be slower to attribute blame and quicker to accept responsibility.

Well, what a joke! Here we are with the first order of bill of the government's business of the day and what does it do? It introduces a bill that will help shelve part of its responsibility for funding an important service under the budget, namely, the provision of law and order services, and shift that onto confiscation of asset wealth from parties who we say in these circumstances are being unfairly deprived of; and that with proper protection the government can take that money but it should put it into the Victims of Crime Fund. The government should put that into the Victims of Crime Fund, and it should make sure that it is available for that purpose and not shirk its own responsibility in direct contradiction of what His Excellency said today that this government is committed to.

They are two fundamental flaws of this legislation. Not only have we said it, others have said it, and the people in the other place have looked at this in some detail and said it, and they have made, I think, sensible amendment. The government, in its typical arrogance, wants to blame everyone else, shoot that home to other people and leave the people of South Australia exposed to the risk of further abhorrent behaviour of people in this criminal area without giving them peace or remedy by sensible legislation.

In short, the opposition will not stop the passage of this bill. We are going to get it straight up to the other place where they can consider it with due consideration. The government knows exactly our position on this. For them to have come back in here in direct ignorance of the invitation given to the opposition to bring on this other, to even show us SOCCA mark II, which they are going to introduce, to be put in the context of this raft of reform, is an insult to this parliament. Having said that this is a necessary raft of reform, that it needs to all be dealt with together, what do they do? They bring this one in today. We are going to get a little peak at the one tomorrow, and goodness knows when we are going to receive the others.

The reality is that it is insulting to this parliament. It is unacceptable to the opposition that the government should play games with this and not give one inch, one centimetre—one whatever—of extra protection to the people of South Australia and yet pretend to care about their safety and protection. They have had the opportunity on SOCCA alone, and we are talking 2009, before the last election. Finally, two years later, we are going to be seeing a draft tomorrow. To ask us to scrutinise this legislation when the Attorney has come in here today and said it is to be put in as a package, that it is to be dealt with as a package of reform, to try to turn around the disastrous statistics that are the reality of the appalling level of their government, is insulting to us, and to then just throw us only one piece of it is absolutely insulting to this parliament.

The Hon. J.R. Rau: You've see most of the others.

Ms CHAPMAN: 'Most of the others.' I want this on the record. The Attorney says we have seen most of the others. We have. I assume that means the weapons and the criminal intelligence bills are also going to come back in exactly the same format as they were thrust on the parliament before without any amendment, without any consideration of what is being put by that smart alec comment by the Attorney. What is more insulting to the people of this parliament is that we are not even allowed to see what is in the SOCCA mark II legislation until tomorrow. What a joke!

Mr ODENWALDER (Little Para) (17:03): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. Of course I support this bill. As a former police officer I know the damage that drug crime can do to a community. Working to protect families and communities from the scourge of drug crime is a vital part of the job. Police have an essential but tough job to do to protect the safety of all in the community.

The men and women enforcing the law can make a difference by catching criminals, but it is only one part of the story. Having effective deterrence is also important to reducing crime and improving safety in all communities throughout the state. That is why this bill and the others the government will introduce this week are so important to police and, indeed, the whole state. The message this bill gives to people considering becoming involved with a drug gang is that, beyond the fact that it is just plain wrong to profit from the misery of others, the price you will pay is far too high. When you emerge from prison you will be bankrupt.

I understand that when this bill was introduced previously—and some of these issues have come up today—some people had concerns about the fact that the bill confiscated more than just the property that could be proven to have come from the proceeds of drug crime. I can understand these concerns, but we should remember that we are dealing ultimately with serious drug dealers and repeat offenders.

Members in their contributions last time spoke of wives and children and the fact that they may be hurt by the actions of their husbands and fathers. Firstly, I note that they may also be hurt by the fact that the drug dealer is imprisoned. I am glad to see that as yet they have not suggested that the bill be amended to remove the possibility of prison as a penalty.

Further, I point out that the legislation has a three strikes in 10 years provision. Where the volume of drugs being trafficked is a commercial quantity and hence has the potential to wreck hundreds of lives, yes, there is the capacity for bankruptcy on the first strike. The government makes no apology for the harshness of this penalty. The deterrent must be strong to ensure that it is effective.

What this bill is, above all else, is another weapon that can be used in the fight against organised crime. While it seems that some drug dealers are not deterred by the potential of losing their own personal liberty or their own personal property, the message this government is sending is, 'Your drug offending won't just hurt other people's families, it may hurt your family too.' I believe it is completely unacceptable to see serious drug offenders picked up from their prison stretches in expensive cars with tinted windows and all the profits from their offences dripping from them.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

Mr ODENWALDER: Good, I'm glad to hear it. What I believe, and what I hope the opposition will now support, is that drug offenders motivated purely by greed should be made to pay for their crimes. Furthermore, this bill is not inflexible, and it may be important for offenders who have been caught to know this. Another part of the power of this bill is that we can use the greed of these criminals to benefit police. Courts will have some discretion to leave the offender with more than just the bankruptcy provisions if the criminal has effectively cooperated with police with information about serious and organised crime.

Every encouragement should be given to criminals to break their code of silence and inform on their co-offenders and against the criminal organisations of which they are a part. However, for this to be effective, serious drug offenders must also know that this law is serious. The threat of bankruptcy must be clear and strong. We know all too well the threats organised criminal gangs make against breaking the silence and how effective they have been. That is why this law needs to create a strong enough incentive to outweigh that threat.

The police, the courts and corrections all have their part to play in breaking drug rings but, ultimately, the framework they all operate in is set here in this building. The parliament has the responsibility of setting in place the right laws to reduce drug crime and improve community safety. This bill supports the work of the justice system by strengthening the deterrent against drug offending, and I commend the bill to the house.

Ms THOMPSON (Reynell) (17:07): I also rise to support this bill. The issue of crime and safety is clearly one of great importance to people in my electorate. They fear hoon drivers. They feel that the contempt graffitists show for other people's property undermines civil society and it makes them fear the possible consequences of this lessening of the value of respecting of property. Most of all, they fear the actions of people affected by drugs and abhor those who traffic in them.

People want to see criminals punished for their crimes and they want confidence that their children can be shielded as much as possible from the evils of drugs. Recent events in South Australia have led to more people asking questions about what can be done to reduce this kind of crime and reduce the chances that they or someone they know may be caught in the crossfire.

It is clear that drug crime plays a central role in fuelling the violence between gangs. The greed of serious drug criminals driving organised crime is deplorable and needs a strong response. The government has proposed a strong response with this bill. Bankrupting serious drug offenders and those involved in serious organised crime should be one way to get them out of our communities. It also shows potential recruits to criminal gangs that crime does not pay and diminishes some of the glamour some misguided individuals think is attached to life in a criminal environment.

The cost of drug crime in the community is significant and is a serious issue. Drugs place a burden on the emergency departments of our hospitals, on law enforcement and even place a burden on legitimate businesses by robbing them of revenue.

In my electorate there is too much evidence of the damage done by drugs. Children are born damaged by the effect of drugs, children do not go to school because of parents affected by drugs, parents are ravaged by the involvement of their children with drugs and, even though the experts seem to have a variety of opinions, parents in my electorate see a strong relationship between unlawful drugs and their child's poor mental health and, indeed, in too many cases, severe psychosis. Grandparents struggle to raise their grandchildren. The main reason I hear for this is that the child's natural parents are affected by drugs and are unable to care for their children.

My constituents want everything possible done to protect them, their children and grandchildren from the damage that is done by criminal activity relating to unlawful drugs. We are elected to act in the best interests of our electorate. That is one thing that, undoubtedly, we all have in common: the importance of the expectations of our communities. Different electorates have different characteristics. I doubt that anyone would argue that there are some differences between an inner city electorate like Unley, Madam Speaker's electorate of Giles and my electorate of Reynell. But there is one thing that I can be fairly sure of: a key concern for families throughout all of our communities is safety. I know that people in my electorate want to see continual improvements in community safety, both through further decreases in crime and through support for rehabilitation of criminals, particularly before they become hardened criminals.

The establishment of a justice resources fund has the potential to ensure that some good comes when society is mopping up the mess left by an organised drug crime ring. The fact that this bill creates the potential for such a fund to be resourced from drug crime is a very positive thing. I understand that the fund will be used to support victims of drug and alcohol related crime, provide rehabilitation programs for drug and alcohol addiction and improve courts infrastructure, equipment and services.

Another key aspect to this bill is the fact that it provides for discounts to those drug criminals who react to the fact that they are about to lose everything. When they are faced with losing everything they are more amenable to provide the intelligence information police need to further attack organised drug crime. In my mind, and in the minds of the people in my electorate with whom I regularly talk about community safety and how it can be improved, it is clear that doing all we can to counter drug crime is essential. Indeed, considering the harmful effects of illicit drugs and the death and destruction they can and do cause, I believe one should question why we would need to have this debate.

I believe that this bill and the others that I understand the government will restore and introduce in the coming days will send a clear message to those who are considering becoming involved in drug crime: you will be caught and you will lose everything. It also sends a clear message to members of our community who in some cases, particularly with some of the more vulnerable members of my community, fear every day for their safety because of the effects of crime, particularly drug related crime. I commend this bill to the house and strongly support yet another government measure to improve community safety.

Mr SIBBONS (Mitchell) (17:13): I understand that this legislation is part of a package aimed squarely at organised crime and the criminals who live their lives outside society's norms. If a person is willing to succumb to greed and show virtually no regard for the lives of others, then I believe it is incumbent upon this government and this parliament to pass laws that attack the material wealth of these criminals.

I understand that through the coming weeks the government will be introducing and restoring a raft of legislation that together will form a new approach to tackling organised crime. I understand that these laws will work with one another to complement and strengthen police powers as they work to dismantle criminal organisations. The nexus between organised crime and drug profits is clear. In 2011, the Australian Crime Commission conservatively estimated that the cost of organised crime to the nation was between $10 billion and $15 billion. Illicit drug abuse comprises an estimated social cost of over $8 billion annually within this $10 billion to $15 billion. This data from the Australian Crime Commission demonstrates that illicit drugs account for at least 50 per cent of the costs of organised crime. Breaking the nexus is an integral part of fighting serious organised crime.

Western Australia has led the nation with these laws. I understand that, in Western Australia, this legislation has collected millions of dollars from serious and repeat drug offenders. Considering the massive cost of drugs on our society, I think it is fitting that this bill enables proceeds seized from drug criminals to be spent on helping those addicted to drugs. Ultimately, this bill is aimed at the kingpins. It will bankrupt the heads of evil empires and make it clear that drug crime does not pay. The bill will also work to reduce recidivist drug crime from criminals found guilty of three prescribed drug offences in 10 years also being eligible to be bankrupted.

It is important to note that this is part of a raft of legislation and should not be considered completely in isolation. While it is also important to give police the power to disrupt criminal organisations and to do all possible to catch the smaller fish in organisations, there also need to be laws that target the people making the most money out of these criminal schemes.

It is worth reinforcing that this legislation will leave serious and repeat drug offenders bankrupt. That means that drug criminals would be allowed to keep no more than the items protected under bankruptcy provisions. This means motor vehicles to a maximum value of $6,700 indexed if the vehicle is owned solely by the bankrupt and $13,400 indexed if the vehicle is jointly owned by to bankrupt; tools of trade to a maximum value of $3,350 indexed; life assurance and superannuation policies; damages and compensation payments; and personal items and household property of limited value.

Those who are driven by greed who attempt to make significant amounts of money through the misery of others should know that they are risking virtually the entirety of their personal property by involving themselves in serious organised drug crime.

The bill is the kind of strong legislation that will operate effectively in concert with the remainder of the serious and organised crime legislation that will be restored and introduced in the coming days. I commend the bill to the house and look forward to the remainder of the legislation that will form the government's integrated approach to tackling serious and organised crime.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (17:18): I thank all the members who have made a contribution in the debate and, of course, in particular, my learned friend the member for Bragg, who is always able to traverse the whole landscape, occasionally touching upon matters of relevance.

I will just deal with this—in as much as it is possible to deal with such a broad canvas—briefly. First of all, let us understand exactly what happened. Using analogies is always difficult but, in deference to the honourable member for Norwood, I am going to pick a pig as an analogy because that seemed to work for him today.

Ms Chapman: Without lipstick.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: With or without lipstick, it does not matter. Imagine a pig that left this chamber looking like a pig which came back with a small bit of snout and a small bit of tail; the rest of the pig had gone. The snout still might have had lipstick—I am not sure—but most of the pig was gone. I think it is difficult to interpret that as anything other than a rejection of the total concept. In fact, if I am not mistaken—

Ms Chapman: Go the whole hog; that's the important thing.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The whole hog, indeed.

Mr Marshall: Go the whole hog.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: You went the whole hog, indeed.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I please finish this?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Can I please remind the Attorney-General and the member for Bragg that this is a parliament, not a courthouse.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: If I am not completely mistaken, even the short title had to be changed. The short title had to be changed when it came back here because it so little resembled the original product that it was about something completely different. I think that is almost a first for this place, that something goes up there looking like X and comes back so different that it has to be retitled, so let us not get away from the fact that there was some improvement done up there. It was radical surgery. If you were translating it into the medical world, it was a 'provisionectomy'—an 'everyprovisionectomy'.

Honourable members opposite cannot duck what they have done. Let us listen again in our minds to the great contributions made by those who have spoken who sit behind me and remember the message they were giving you. The message they were giving you is very simple. There are a couple of ways you can not be affected by this legislation. There are two easy ways not to be affected by it. Number one: do not commit the crime. It is not real hard, is it? Just do not do it. Number two: if you are dumb enough to commit the crime, and you still do not want to pay the penalty, you can tell the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions all about the other crooks who were involved in this thing with you, and you will not have to do it either.

There are two options. The first, sensible one is: do not get involved at all. The second one is: if you are dopey enough to get involved in this stuff, you still have a 'Get out of jail free' card. Doesn't that fit well? That is a Monopoly analogy, by the way. You still have that card if you 'fess up and you start telling people who can then prosecute other people. It adds to the incentive. For those people who want to stay out of gaol, the incentive is, do not do it. If you get caught, the incentive is you cough up and explain what is going on and you are not going to be touched by this either. What on earth—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I was urged to make an allusion to the film Deliverance, but I am not going to do that. The point is that this is only going to touch two groups of people: people who are out there committing horrific crimes which cause God knows how much misery to people in our society and, of that group, the subset who refuse to cooperate with the police. They are the only people this is going to touch and, quite frankly, I do not feel very sorry for them and, in relation to the remarks made by the honourable member for Bragg, who I know is doing a brave thing by doing what she knows people in another place have historically wanted done, you cannot possibly defend people in that tiny subset.

What we got from the honourable member was what we usually get—the attack, which is always the best form of defence. Obviously she is good at it because she is able to deploy it on several different arenas but, in this particular case, I am reminded of a situation I had at home when my children were much smaller than they are now. My youngest child had a nappy which was containing a lot of material and somebody—it might have been me—said to her, 'My goodness, has somebody had an accident?' and she said, 'Yes,' and pointed at one of the other kids. That is what we have today.

The people upstairs are the ones who have mucked around with this, not us. We brought it forward. The finger has been pointing at us and let me take you to some of the amusing aspects of this. The Hon. Mr Wade upstairs—who I must say is the most prolific press release producer of all time, not that much notice is taken of them—put out some stuff today, and originally I thought it was Monty Python because it has that sort of ironic, bizarre humour about it.

Having sat through a number of deadlock conferences with the Hon. Stephen Wade, I am not sure that he is a Monty Python fan. I do not think that that is his style. He has purported to go through promises made at the 2010 election and then give us a scorecard of how we have gone. The first one: 'Promise: allow similar fact and propensity evidence to be introduced into court.' Next to that, 'Delivered?' Answer? 'No.' Well, I am sorry. He voted on it like the rest of us did and we dealt with that last year. That is one of the few bills that went through the parliament, so I think he is going to have to revise it and remember—

Mr Marshall: Revise the score up?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Another point for us. He needs to remember that either he was here and voted for it, or he has amnesia or something else.

Let me go to another one. This is a good one. What about this one? This one is fantastic. So ironic. Is that Alanis Morissette? I cannot remember. This is great. 'Promise: taking the profits from drug traffickers.' That is the promise—2010 election. Mr Wade is holding this government accountable for a 2010 promise—'taking the profits from drug traffickers'. And in the next column: 'Delivered?' Answer: 'No.' Why? Why no? Listen, here is the answer. In the answer column does it say, 'Because I wouldn't let it through and I cut it to bits?' No. It does not say that. It says, 'Bill introduced that takes resources away from victims of crime and diverts them to general revenue.' Hello? This is breathtaking. The very person who has denied this legislation passage is now complaining that the government, and me in particular, who he accuses of all talk and no action, because I have not passed this bill, because he would not let it pass, I mean—

Ms CHAPMAN: On a point of order: I cannot find it here but I think there is some reference to reflections on members in another house in respect of legislation. If you are simply quoting from a press release of a statement made, that is one thing, but to actually go on and make statements about the motives of members of the other house during the course of the debate, then I think that offends the standing orders. I cannot find it straightaway but it is in reference to being rude to the Queen and the Queen's representative and other things, but it is in the ilk of that.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Bragg. Attorney-General, I am sure you will understand the point of order and will be extremely careful about your comments.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am going to be extremely careful about not offending the Queen or Mr Wade and I do not quite frankly understand what his motivation is for any of this so I would not try and speculate on it. Here is the next one. He says, 'Promise: new serious organised crime laws.' I am not sure that that was a 2010 promise. I think that was a promise made after the Totani decision but, never mind, let us not be pedantic about it. 'Delivered? No.'

Since then we have had the honourable member for Bragg being critical of the level of engagement that we have had with the opposition about this matter. Let me just take her on a small journey down memory lane. We had the Totani decision which we had to deal with, then we had the New South Wales decision which we had to deal with and, in the interests of public consultation, we put out draft bills.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Hang on. Please, relax, I have not got to the punchline. Just relax. Here it is. This is 9 September 2011, to Mr Wade, 'Dear Stephen' and the name is handwritten because it is a quite personal letter, 'Serious and organised crime legislative package' and I am quoting now from the letter in case there is a problem:

You are no doubt aware that last week I released some draft bills for public comment, particularly expert comment. The aim of the package of bills is to encompass a series of proposals aimed at disrupting and attacking the activities of organised crime, particularly bikie crime. In particular, I do not intend that all of the policy eggs are in the one basket of the serious and organised control act, even if amended as proposed so as to minimise the chance of it being declared unconstitutional. I attach copies of the bills for your information.

Ms Chapman: We have all that but what are you coming into parliament with tomorrow?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Hang on. It continues:

I intend at this stage that they, or some of them, in a slightly varied version, will be introduced to parliament soon after parliament resumes.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Stay with me, it will be worthwhile. We received a number of responses to that and we were inviting the Hon. Stephen Wade to respond to it, too, so we could take into account whatever he had to say. I received a letter on 28 November last year from the Hon. Mr Wade, who smiles at me from his page and—

Ms Chapman: It's a very nice photo.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is a nice photo. It's quite fetching, actually. He says—

Ms Chapman: He doesn't wear carnations.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It is difficult to tell because he appears to have a map of South Australia protruding from his pocket.

Mr Marshall: But it is not a delphinium.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No. In any event, it states:

I refer to your letter of 9 September 2011 and your comments in the House of Assembly of 10 November and 22 November in relation to the organised crime bills. I note your comments that the opposition has not commented on the draft bills before they are tabled.

Now, here it is—

Mr Marshall: Here is the punchline, the moment we have all been waiting for.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: While we are sort of putting our arrogance chips on the table, I see you are two; I raise you five. Here we go:

It is my well-established general practice not to make submissions to consultations on draft bills. On the one hand, I would not want to pre-empt broader consultation and, on the other, I respect the right of the government to modify the drafts.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: So we invite people to let us know what they think of the draft bills. We spend time talking to those people, every one of them, and amongst them is Mr Wade? No, he is not amongst them. So away we go, we consult with people, and, as you will see tomorrow—

Mr Marshall: What did the Law Society say?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, I think it would be better for them to speak for themselves, because I have often formed the impression—and I am sure this is not correct because the Law Society would not be party to this, but it is like when Adam West was in that Batman program, and whenever anything happened he would pick up the phone, take the glass thing off it—

An honourable member: 'Commissioner.'

The Hon. J.R. RAU: 'Commissioner'—exactly. Whenever the Hon. Stephen Wade is confronted with an issue he goes to the room, picks up the phone and hopes to speak to the Law Society. Well, he is going to do that anyway so I do not want to ruin it for everybody by telling them what they are going to say. Anyway, getting back to the other things we have not done: weapons prohibition orders, promised. Have we done it? No. Legislation introduced in 2010? Yes, it was. Passed by the Legislative Council?

Ms Chapman: Yes.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, not passed by the Legislative Council; butchered by the Legislative Council.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I can go on for quite a while about this stuff.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I seek leave to continue my remarks, Madam Speaker.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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