HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-02-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offenders) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 25 February 2015.)

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (15:57): There is no doubt that the scourge of illicit drugs in our community is one that behoves the government, and indeed all of us, to develop policies, work on policies, and work on legislation that is going to complement the efforts of police, law enforcement, the criminal justice sector, and all of the drug rehabilitation and prevention agencies, organisations and departments in our community to try to combat this scourge. That goes without saying.

This is a bill that has been introduced on a number of occasions by the Attorney-General over several years and claims that as its goal but its methodology, I would identify, has had some problems over the years. It has had constitutional questions raised. The case in the High Court has dealt with some of these matters, and I direct the casual reader of Hansard to the contribution made yesterday by the member for Bragg in which she dealt with some of these matters.

For my part, I have long spoken in this house, and prior to coming into parliament, about some of the effective approaches for dealing with drugs, and I think that it is worth noting that under the Howard government, for example, the national Tough on Drugs campaign saw from 1998 to 2007 an extraordinary decline in drug use across Australia. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's national household surveys saw unprecedented drops: heroin use in Australia dropped by 300 per cent from 0.8 per cent of the population to 0.2 per cent, cannabis use dropped, ketamine use dropped, pill use dropped, and a range of drugs dropped. Methamphetamines were by and large stable. Ecstasy (MDMA) use dropped, although, as we have identified previously, there is not a great deal of MDMA in Australia. Most people buying ecstasy will be shocked to see the chemical composition of what they are putting into their bodies, if it was not bad enough to start with.

It is established that that campaign over 10 years—a holistic campaign, which focused on three aspects at a federal level and some at the state level—can be effective in dealing with the scourge of drugs. A holistic campaign requires a strong education campaign, such as the one that was well funded by the Howard government. It included magazines sent to every household in Australia about how to talk to kids about drugs, and it included effective advertising campaigns and probably one of the first social media campaigns that has been run in a public health fashion in Australia in 2006, and a range of other effective ways to deal with that. In education there was a very strong schools campaign.

I remember seeing a Pfizer survey in 2006 on secondary students' consideration of drug use, what they thought was acceptable. Over a similar sort of period (forgive me if I get this one year out, but it is about 1997 to 2006) secondary school students were found to have dropped in their acceptance of cannabis use as a legitimate activity from some 60 per cent down to less than half; it was in the 20 per cent range. Clearly, education has a key role. I would like to see this government do more on the range of education campaigns at the moment. In the South-East the member for Mount Gambier attended an ice forum in his electorate at which 400 people in his community were present. Clearly, there is a desire for more information, as we have much stronger methamphetamines than were ever previously available and a much higher THC content in cannabis than was ever previously the case. Clearly, there is a case for education.

The second part of the holistic approach that the Howard government took was, of course, border protection and law enforcement. We saw over that period the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service budget increase. Of course, it was not drugs that was the driver; this was over the period of the September 11 attacks. Nevertheless, there was also in an incredible increase in the Customs budget from several hundred million dollars a year to over $1 billion a year that included a strong payoff in tackling illegal drugs at the border. It was for that reason that in that period cocaine use in Australia was very low, because it was very hard to get cocaine into the country. Its use in Australia was in that period certainly much lower than internationally understood.

We worked very hard in our international engagement with countries like the Philippines, in particular, and others in the South-East Asian region. With India we made great progress on tackling the issue of precursor chemicals entering Australia, the sorts of things involved in creating methamphetamines. We had the national project STOP, which dealt with the use of pseudoephedrine in relation to, again, backyard chemist kits. That project—STOP—worked in with pharmacies to ensure that people had to produce their driver's licence to get pseudoephedrine-related cough medicine. It is important that at that stage we still thought that it was useful to fight colds in the winter, so pseudoephedrine was readily available, but we put a stop to somebody being able to go from pharmacy to pharmacy to pharmacy. The chemist would put their driver's licence details into the computer so that if they went to another pharmacy the second pharmacy could call the police, and by the time they got to the third pharmacy they could be arrested and told to explain themselves. That sort of progress on the prevention side was critically important.

Also at the rehabilitation side was the area in which the Howard government probably took the most profound new direction in the tough on drugs approach that any federal government had done before. There was extraordinary growth in funding to non-government organisations offering rehabilitation programs and rehabilitation options to those who were the victims, who were among the victims, that being the users, the addicts, those who had been led down this path by the malicious drug dealers who had got them hooked. The rehabilitation options that were offered through NGOs under the course of the Howard government were extraordinary. There were hundreds of millions of dollars given to community programs, through live-in residential programs, including those with comorbidity issues and with mental health and substance abuse issues that had ever been dealt with before in a major federal government program, with hundreds of millions of dollars every year by the end of it. We are talking about a $1.6 billion program over the course of its life, and I was very pleased to be involved with that holistic approach.

We also worked through the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy to deal with issues such as drug related paraphernalia. I remember attending in an advisory capacity a ministerial council where we were looking at the use of bongs, which I think is the usually accepted title, and their commonplace sale in shops around the country and instruction booklets on how to cook your own methamphetamines and those sorts of things. It took a national approach to deal with these issues and that was part of that holistic Liberal-led Tough on Drugs strategy.

I am pleased that for the most part all governments around Australia signed up and participated in that, but it helped that the federal government was paying for the overwhelming bulk of it. There are some things that were done well, there were some things that were done poorly, across the range of drug strategy, and one thing that we have done very poorly over a number of years in South Australia is tackling things at the low end of the scale.

Anyone who tried to cross state borders with their P-plates on in the 1980s or 1990s would no doubt have been pulled over by interstate police if they had South Australian plates because South Australia was known as the place where you could get drugs and you could export them to other states. Other states tried to get their drugs in from South Australia. We had 10 plants as the norm and you would get this expiation if you were growing 10 plants of marijuana—an extraordinary commercial capacity to make money out of 10 plants of marijuana. That was no more than a slight speeding fine in the South Australian code. That has been altered slightly but it is still 100 grams of cannabis before you get to commercial quantities. This bill in its attempt to deal with serious drug issues in South Australia does not go anywhere near that, so that is the first issue.

In relation to drug treatment and diversion, when somebody is responsible for committing a minor drug related offence, the federal government for a number of years—and, again, it was part of the Howard government's Tough on Drugs strategy—established that if you are looking at somebody who is a first time offender or a minor offender or somebody without significant likelihood of reoffending in a broader sense, if they got the rehabilitation, they would be offered either a police diversion program or a courts diversion program.

Every state negotiated with the commonwealth government on the sort of diversion programs they would want and it was all paid for by the federal government. Over the course of that Tough on Drugs program, South Australia participated in a number of these diversion programs. However, South Australia is the only state where, rather than just diverting people once or twice or maybe three times—and you are going to try to improve their life by getting them off drugs by showing them a different path—South Australia is the only place in the country where, if somebody commits such an offence, they get unlimited lives.

In fact, the assumption is that they will be diverted even if it is their 23rd or 35th offence. Now, that sounds ridiculous but we actually have cases established by FOI—and one that has been printed in The Advertiser—of individuals who have continued to take the mickey out of the system to turn their backs and show the wrong face to the system by flaunting their refusal to improve their ways. When somebody has committed a minor crime of this nature once, the appropriate thing is of course for it to be diverted. We want them to get their lives on track, we do not want them clogging up the courts. If somebody does it twice or three times, then the same may be the way. They can reform their ways. If somebody is doing it 23 or 35 times, chances are they are not taking it seriously.

This is a serious failing in the South Australian legislation and, again, it is an issue that this bill does not go anywhere near. The fact of the matter is that there is a business model that actually incentivises drug dealers to go out and be able to carry a certain amount of drugs and they cannot get charged with anything more than what is comparably a minor expiation. Most motorists would be willing to grasp a $150 or $300 fine with glee.

Somebody whose licence has expired for one day who is still on the roads and has not got around to replacing it is going to get three times that fine, just as an expiation, to start with. When we have a situation like that it incentivises a business model for the middle-range drug dealers to go out and get new people attracted to drugs. This legislation does not go anywhere near dealing with that demand-end issue; it does not send the message that the very act of seeking to procure drugs is fostering the decrepit and disgusting criminal system that this legislation claims to seek to address.

With those comments, I am sure there will be opportunities for potential amendments to be considered by the government, and we will see where that ends up. I thank the house for its attention during my comments—during this speech, at least—today.

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (16:10): I also rise today to speak on the Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offenders) Amendment Bill, which was introduced by the Attorney earlier in February this year. As has been put to the house the bill is, in all respects, somewhat identical to the Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offenders) Amendment Bill 2014, which collapsed due to prorogation; it was certainly a victim of that. First, I would like to talk a little bit about the intent of such a bill and what I believe are the issues that it seeks to address. I will also talk a little about the drug issue in general, and then about how the bill has been received and potential amendments to the bill.

In terms of why criminals commit crime, it is obviously for a wide range of reasons; however, it goes without saying that one of them is that they see the opportunity to profiteer from the crime involved. At its essence, I think that is why the Attorney and the government are looking to introduce such a bill. Remember Labor's 2010 serious crime election policy? It stated that it would look to target persistent, high-level drug offenders to provide for the total confiscation of the property of a declared drug trafficker as well as criminal drug dealers.

We know that at that time there were serious concerns with such legislation, firstly with regard to constitutionality. Did the legislation offend the Kable principle? That was later resolved, which was very pleasing to see. Secondly, there was an issue concerning fairness, particularly where you try to confiscate assets of certain drug offenders, virtually to the brink of bankruptcy, even if a person can prove that the assets were legally acquired. Is that a fair thing? Obviously there are also issues concerning the diversion of proceeds away from victims of crime.

In spite of threats to do so, Labor failed to make this sort of bill an issue in the 2014 election, but here we have it again. Third time lucky, I believe. I will certainly hand it to the Attorney, he has been persistent in this bill; third time at least, without any amendment, I believe. Certainly he keeps coming back; obviously he is keen and eager to get this one over the line before he is appointed to the bench.

As I have mentioned, constitutionality was an issue, and it is not the first time that a government has raised this issue. It goes without saying that the bikies legislation during the last parliament was seen to have many holes; certainly this government was a laughing stock when the bikies showed us time and time again that if you do not make laws that are constitutional they will go to the High Court and these laws will be sent back. So I am glad that the Kable principle and the concept I spoke about earlier have been clarified at least.

In terms of potential comments and concerns raised by outsiders, I did mention briefly last year, and I will touch on this again, that the Law Society has had a fair bit to say in regard to this bill. They have said to the Attorney that it is their view that this bill deprives a person of their normally acquired assets and property where there is no connection between the commission of the offence and the property.

These are certainly valid concerns and, as I pointed out, what happens to the person who has hydroponics in the roof of his mother's house or his grandmother's house where he is living, she does not know about it, there is a fire and equipment is discovered? Who is to blame? How does the bill address these sorts of concerns? I think the concerns are still there and they need to be explained and fleshed out. The Law Society notably calls the bill:

...an archaic and retrograde step that fundamentally changes our community's laws in relation to personal property.

So, there we have it—experts from the Law Society are still calling into question issues with this bill.

Another concern I have with the bill is in relation to the treatment and isolation of these certain offenders. If you are going to treat these kinds of offenders this way, what about all the other kinds of offenders, where perhaps there could be large sums of money acquired through crime? I think there should be consideration for these sorts of things.

There have been amendments discussed in the past, and I will probably leave that for later on, but personally I would like to see some kind of judicial review against DPP direction where it is in the interests of justice to do so. I think it is always important that we do that where required. I would also like to see some kind of guidelines, almost like the prosecutorial guidelines that are published.

I still have real concerns about the proceeds of confiscation. I reiterate to the house that the proceeds of confiscation should not go the government, they should not go into general revenue, and they should not be propping up an ailing state budget, just as we have seen other bodies propping up an ailing state budget. I would have thought that they should largely be paid into the Victims of Crime Fund to seek redress, to go back to actually preventing crime and also the victims of crime.

I would also like to see part of the proceeds going into drug rehabilitation. You and I know, Deputy Speaker, that our gaols at the moment do not do a good enough job of rehabilitating the prisoners they hold, and this is a massive issue. If we as a society could work more on rehabilitation, we would certainly save the taxpayer a lot of money, and in the long run I would have thought that if more criminals were rehabilitated through our system it would certainly be good and beneficial.

I would also like to see some kind of review in terms of the operation of the bill. I think a review of this sort of bill, especially when it has been criticised by legal eagles out there as being archaic—

Mr Picton interjecting:

Mr TARZIA: Not as good as you, member for Kaurna. You would be a legal eagle, sir, not me. I think with any kind of law that is criticised by the legal profession, it is only natural and just that we review it after a certain point in time. Is it two years? Is it three years? I would say that we should strike a balance, a balance between at least letting it go and seeing how it goes in the field, and then still having time to correct any errors if they are there. Finally, I would also like to see some kind of annual report or report back to parliament so that we can scrutinise the level of performance so far as that goes.

With those kinds of amendments, which one of my colleagues may even purport to put to the house, I would not hesitate to support the bill, and I am sure that it will certainly be more fleshed out in the other place. All in all, I support the intent of the government and what they are trying to do here.

We all know that, unless we create adequate deterrents, some people will be drawn into a life of criminal activity. We know, unfortunately, that sometimes crime pays and, because crime pays, I think we certainly have to look at ways to cause that deterrent to prevent criminals offending, especially in these sorts of activities such as drugs. We are seeing cases overseas at the moment that are being called into question. Drugs are very bad, and they certainly—

Ms Redmond interjecting:

Mr TARZIA: Illicit drugs, thank you—and they certainly have a massive impact on our society. I support the general intent of the bill. I would support amendments like I have mentioned and, with those comments, I commend the bill to the house.

Ms COOK (Fisher) (16:20): I am very pleased to be speaking on this government's bill today. I am aware that this bill has come before the house a number of times prior to my election to this place, so I will try to keep my comments brief.

This bill is an incredibly important piece of legislation which tries to cripple the business dealings of those who choose to engage in drug trafficking. According to the latest National Drugs Strategy Household Survey report, close to 10 per cent of Australians have been victims of an illicit drug-related incident. The report also found that there was an increase of about 30 per cent in the number of people who were victims of a physical assault due to illicit drug use.

I am proud to be a member of a government that has always prioritised community safety and has made this central to our justice system. I know that this government first presented this plan to the community at the 2010 election campaign and the government has consistently tried to tell members of the opposition and members in the other place that the community needs this bill as a way of providing further protection from those who would do so much harm to our society. I know about this only too well.

This bill aims to attack the very worst drug offenders in our community—those who engage in the very worst kinds of drug dealing and trafficking. We are not talking about people who are running a small operation out of their backyard in order to fund their own habits or who, with a bit of support, can actually change their behaviours. We are talking about the very worst traffickers and dealers—those who commit extremely serious offences and then refuse the opportunities to rehabilitate themselves. By 'extremely serious offences', we are talking about those outlined in the Controlled Substances Act as comprising trafficking, manufacture for sale, selling or possession with an intent to sell a large commercial quantity or a commercial quantity of controlled substances or controlled plants, and the cultivation of a large commercial quantity or a commercial quantity of controlled plants.

What we understand from people who completely refuse opportunities to rehabilitate themselves is that a prison sentence is not a deterrent to change their behaviour. These offenders have had one opportunity, then a second and, finally, on their third chance, have still refused to change their behaviour. At this point, it is time to remove something they see as important and something they actually care about, that is, their accumulated wealth—wealth gained, in the main, from the pain, misery and suffering of others in our community.

Currently, the government can seize assets which have been accumulated through criminal activities, so why do we need to expand this power for the most heinous drug offenders? These people are selfish, greedy and purely driven by material gain. They are so driven by this goal that they put money above their freedom. They use money to allow them to blind themselves to the damage they create within our community. These people are experienced money launderers and experts at hiding their ill-gotten gains by making them appear as though they were legally sought. We know this is not true, the community knows this is not true and the Director of Public Prosecutions knows that this is not true. These assets have been gained illegally.

It is important for members to note that the proceeds of confiscation will be put to good use. It is proposed that funds raised by the application of this initiative be devoted to a new fund to be called a Justice Resources Fund. This fund will be devoted to the provision of moneys for courts' infrastructure, equipment and services. The fund will support justice programs, facilities for dealing with drug and alcohol-related crime and for the provision of justice reform initiatives.

Disbursements will not overlap with those made from, or eligible for moneys from, the existing Victims of Crime Fund for the best justice outcomes for those who have committed crimes but can be rehabilitated. There will be more funding available to fund our justice system under this bill. Less tax moneys of law-abiding citizens will need to be spent on funding our criminal justice system. Instead, it will get money from those who are costing our justice system so much.

Legislation like this is not new within Australia. Currently there is similar legislation operating within Western Australia and the Northern Territory. The legislation proposed here is a softer version of what is currently in place in Western Australia. In Western Australia the assets of serious drug offenders can then be seized, truly attacking the issue at its roots. However, nothing is left for the serious drug offenders, not even their basic household goods. The South Australian bill incorporates measures to ensure that basic needs are still met for the individuals whose assets are taken.

This legislation also does not seek to further disadvantage the families of serious drug offenders or the offenders themselves to a point where they lose all assets. It aims to take away any benefit in engaging in criminal behaviour, yet still allow the offender to retain their basic household property, so their families are able to continue working and living with basic assets.

There is an opportunity for offenders who willingly cooperate with the police to help us unravel criminal organisations or larger criminal conspiracies. If offenders work with the police, there is an opportunity for them not to be pursued under these proposed laws. This provides a clear incentive for those caught engaging in serious crimes to work with the police to protect their own assets by helping us put more drug dealers and drug traffickers behind bars, making our community a safer place. This would also translate to a reduction in time and money spent on prosecutions.

I am aware that other members have raised concerns about the constitutional validity of these laws in the past. I am also aware that similar laws in the Northern Territory were brought before the High Court and their constitutional validity was upheld. Since this test has been put to the High Court, I sincerely hope that members coming to this debate do not try to hide behind any constitutional validity argument or use it to mislead members of our community.

I am very proud to be a member of a government which is using every tool at its disposal to fight those who hold no remorse for the heinous crimes that they commit against our community. It is time for us to enact real powers to be able to effectively punish those who are doing so much harm to our community and to try to bring about a safer one. For those who are concerned about the impact on those who are punished under the proposed laws, there is one simple solution: do not deliberately engage in serious drug crimes. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms REDMOND (Heysen) (16:27): I was fascinated to hear those comments from the member for Fisher. It sounded as though she was saying that she does not care about the fact that these things might not be constitutionally valid. That is just an observation of what that speech sounded like.

I want to make a brief contribution about the Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offenders) Amendment Bill. There is only really one issue that I want to canvass in that contribution. Essentially, I have long held the view that we should take the assets of people, not just the assets from the actual proceeds of crime, which was the original law that came in, that the proceeds of crime could be confiscated, but their other assets could not necessarily. Of course, even determining what assets were proceeds of crime and what were not was a problem. Philosophically, I am not opposed to this bill, because it does seek to make sure that basically all of the assets are able to be taken.

My concern relates, though, to whether we can end up with some situations that might be unfair for innocent parties. In our party room (without disclosing too much of what goes on in there), we did have a discussion about whether this bill, if it becomes law, could be used to confiscate assets where they are not held at all in the name of the offender. If the offender, for instance, lives in a house owned by mum and dad, can mum and dad's house be taken?

Obviously, that can be a complex question, because we do not want to let the offender escape the difficulty of having assets confiscated by simply transferring them into the name of mum and dad, to continue that example. But on the other hand, what if mum and dad are just an innocent older couple and he happened to be living in their house, what is the protection to stop their house from being taken as part of the criminal assets? It seems to me that the attempt of this bill is to be broad enough to do that.

That then made me apply my mind to what happens in a bankruptcy because in a bankruptcy, obviously, some people who know that they are going to go bankrupt attempt to avoid the consequences of the bankruptcy by, a sufficient time before they go bankrupt, transferring their property into the name of another person or, indeed, in one famous circumstance in Western Australia, someone went through the process of getting a divorce and, in the divorce settlement, transferred a lot of the property to the ex-wife in the divorce, and thus it was safe from seizure in another circumstance.

What I am concerned about in particular is this issue of can innocent people find that they would have their assets confiscated? To that end, I began to have a bit of a look—and I have had only a bit of a look—at the federal Bankruptcy Act provisions, in particular, section 114ABC. I am not going to read those into the record but, in essence, they deal with the effect of proceeds of crime orders; in particular, they refer to the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Australian Federal Police being able to deal with things that would be taken in a bankruptcy but come under the federal Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

What I am concerned about is the idea that someone could have, under the provisions of this particular legislation, the circumstance where either an innocent party could directly have their property taken as a result of this act or, if you are a creditor in a bankruptcy, will your entitlement under that bankruptcy as a creditor potentially be usurped by the provisions of this legislation? It seems to me that, if you read part 2 of the bill, the amendment of the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act, there is a definition which is inserted called 'protected property'. That definition says:

…protected property of a person means property owned by or subject to the effective control of the person that could not be taken in proceedings against the person under the laws of bankruptcy (as modified by regulations under this Act);

I would be interested to hear the Attorney's explanation of what is the intent and purpose of those words 'as modified by regulation under this Act' and what effect all of that has on this question.

I am hoping that we do not have to go into committee for this—if the Attorney can give a sufficient explanation to me in his response—but they are the two circumstances I am concerned about. What protection is there for an innocent party who happens to own property but who could have some connection with the person whose property is to be seized—is it possible that mum and dad's house can be taken because it seems to me that that is possible under this legislation?

Secondly, is it possible that a legitimate creditor in a bankruptcy could have their legitimate claim in the bankruptcy thwarted in favour of the state taking this property and, indeed, even if it is put into the Victims of Crime Fund? The member for Bragg mentioned yesterday just how much is in that fund at the moment, and the fact is that it has more than enough to accommodate any claims that are made on it.

It seems to me that, if you are an innocent person, small business owner, or whatever it might be, who is a creditor of such a person, you should not have your entitlements in a bankruptcy overridden by this legislation. If the Attorney can satisfy me on those matters, I will not require further explanation in the committee stage. That is really all I needed to say about this particular bill.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform) (16:34): I will just say a few things: first of all, the member for Heysen has raised some reasonably technical legal questions. They are good questions but not ones that I think in a few moments I am in a position to be able to respond properly to, but I can indicate that between here and the other place (where I understand there will be potentially some amendments moved or whatever done in relation to this matter) I will ask—

Ms Chapman: Improvements made.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Improvements made, yes. That is the euphemism that the Hon. Stephen Wade uses for whatever it is that he does, yes. The member for Bragg is now the shadow attorney and we are now walking towards the sunlit uplands as a result.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, I am not going to go too long.

Ms Chapman: Don't spoil it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Alright. So, member for Heysen, I will get on to that and see if we can find an answer to that question. The fact is that the opposition has opposed this bill every time it has bobbed up for the last four or something years. Each time there has been a new absolutely drop-dead reason why they had to oppose it. I think the first time was because it was really unfair on criminals—why should one criminal get punished more than another for having committed a similar offence? The second time it was because there was a constitutional issue which was vexing everybody and, of course, that was just thrown up like chaff or confetti to try to confuse everybody. We know that the High Court in Emmerson put any doubt that there was about that being a proposition worth a minute's consideration completely out of doubt.

The third time it came up I cannot remember what it was—whether it was the dog ate the homework or whatever—but there was another reason, and today it appears that the reason is because it will impede the independence of the DPP as a primary consideration. It will not do that at all. The DPP is an independent statutory officer. The DPP will exercise his or her discretion as to whether or not and how it deals with these matters in the same way as it exercises its prosecutorial discretion in relation to other matters. That is, with respect, a bogus point; it is a non-point. The fact is that the opposition just does not like this bill and so it runs around finding different things to complain about and, as I said, that has been a moving feast.

The member for Hartley in his comments quoted from South Park, I believe. There is a fellow in South Park called Mr Mackey who is frequently heard to say, 'Drugs are bad, m'kay.'

Ms Chapman: Is he the one with the chainsaw?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, I do not think so. He is a teacher, I think. The Law Society, of course, does not like this but, as has been pointed out to me, one could almost paraphrase what they had to say with the great quote of Mandy Rice-Davies which is, 'They would say that, wouldn't they?'

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, I know. I will get some new stuff, some new material.

Ms Chapman: Get some integrity stuff.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Fair enough. The member for Bragg and I do not remember Mandy Rice-Davies but we remember our grandparents talking about it, don't we?

Ms Chapman: Grandfathers, anyway.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, indeed—and her friend, Christine.

An honourable member: We'll all just nod politely.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. It's actually quite a good film if anyone wants to see it; I think John Hurt was in it and played Dr Ward, if I remember correctly.

Mr Picton: Point of order: bring him back to the subject!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am sorry. The DPP is completely independent. On the other point about the fund, I just want to make these points: first, I do not think there is any reasonable call for putting more money into the Victims of Crime Fund, given how that fund is sitting presently. It is quite a robust fund, I think you could say. The second point I want to make is that the range of activities that this legislation enables to be funded from this fund includes, importantly—and I refer to clause 22 of the bill which inserts what would become section 209A of the legislation and new subsection (5)—and I quote:

…for the provision of programs and facilities within the justice system for dealing with drug and alcohol related crime;

So it is there and I am not saying for a moment that there is not an important bit of work to be done in that space, I just do not want this to be prescriptive about what percentage of this fund, which will accumulate irregularly depending on convictions, needs to be dispersed, particularly in relation to drug and alcohol, because then you start getting into definitional problems. I can say, as the minister who sits most in relation to the Victims of Crime Fund, that the purposes for which that might be used are quite narrow.

Ms Chapman: No, they are not. We are going to build new courts with it, it says here.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: This one yes, but I am saying the Victims of Crime Fund is very narrow and I am saying this is deliberately broader. Can I give an example of something that this might be able to help us with?

Ms Chapman: A Rau building, is it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I was thinking of calling it the Chapman building, actually.

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I say to the member for Bragg that I am actually of the view that we do have a big problem in our criminal justice system and that is actually something we are looking at presently with the rate of incarceration of people who are not necessarily a danger to other citizens and for whom the only prescription presently is incarceration in a one-size-fits-all prison system. I do not have any problem at all with really bad people who are hurting other citizens all the time being locked up in a place like that.

I do not have a problem with that, but when you have people whose real problem basically is on that borderline between medical, social and criminal, where because they are abusing a substance they are possibly burgling houses to get money, or they are a minor functionary in some drug distribution network, or they have driven a car without a licence or something of that nature, one of the things I really want to explore, and I think this would assist us, is to look at the possibility of there being some sort of—perhaps in partnership with private sector people who are interested in this business—opportunity for some sort of intermediate style of accommodation for these people. They can be bailed or they can be, if necessary, sentenced to be in this place where they have some sort of regime imposed on them, but they are not in the context of a formal prison. They can have their medical conditions managed and suchlike, but not in a prison environment. I am very keen at looking at all of those options.

My main objection to the suggestions made about the fund is that I do not want it to be too prescriptive so that worthy things in that justice reform area cannot potentially be funded or supported in some way from this fund, because I think there is something fundamentally sound about having really bad criminals give up their wealth so that we, as a community, can invest in reducing the things that cause criminal behaviour, in general terms.

With those words I think that is probably pretty well all I can say about the matter and I repeat to the member for Bragg that I am very happy to speak with her further about these matters between the houses. I would also say that, just because the former shadow attorney-general basically backed himself into a very small corner on day one on this, that does not bind the member for Bragg. The member for Bragg has a fresh set of eyes over this and all I am really asking in respect of that fund is that, from the point of view of being able to have maximum flexibility to deliver the exact types of services and support that we need to offer, or provide the appropriate facilities, or whatever it might be from this fund, it needs to be flexible. I think that is probably all I need to say at the present time.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform) (16:45): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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