HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-10-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Controlled Substances (Simple Possession Offences) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 September 2015.)

Mr TARZIA (Hartley) (11:49): I rise today to speak in favour of the Controlled Substances (Simple Possession Offences) Amendment Bill. Obviously, drugs are a scourge on our society and we need to be doing everything we can to relieve our society from the dangers associated with people who are on drugs, taking drugs, caught up in drugs, etc.

This bill will stop a person charged with a serious drug offence from also being diverted under the PDDI scheme for a simple possession offence that has happened at the same time. I must give credit to the writers of the bill. It is a very sensible bill. I also note in supporting the position that our bill of the same nature could also be spoken about down the track on this issue. The member for Taylor, in her second reading contribution on the bill, on 13 November said:

While the government supports the diversion scheme and opposes the bill, we agree that something does need to be done to deal with people who are clearly abusing the system. For this reason, the government is exploring an alternative proposal involving the use of undertakings.

While this bill is actually minor and somewhat technical, I understand that the government has advised that DASSA has undertaken internal policy changes to the way the assessments are made to enable a tighter and strict treatment of simple possession offenders who offend on multiple occasions within a certain period of time. I understand that stakeholders have been consulted in relation to this bill and that it is has been approved and supported by relevant stakeholders in the area.

At the moment, if someone is charged with, say, serious drug offences, such as manufacturing, but they also happen to have a personal quantity about themselves, this is an example where they might be caught up in the drug diversion process in addition to their serious charges. This can result in overlap and, given that the offenders are already being caught up in the justice system, it can be somewhat time wasting.

I want to make the point that where we can, where there are prospects of rehabilitation, we should be encouraging people affected by these sorts of offences to be rehabilitated, but at the same time, from our point of view as lawmakers, I think we also have to create deterrents and lead in this area by putting a message out to the community that we do not tolerate drugs in our society which, as I said, are a scourge in our society and impact our future generations. We want to be doing everything we can to ensure that our children grow up in a society that is as fair as possible and that our society is not affected by people taking drugs, manufacturing drugs, cultivating drugs, and the like. It is a somewhat simple law, a simple amendment bill, and I commend it to the house.

Mr DULUK (Davenport) (11:53): I also rise to speak on the Controlled Substances (Simple Possession Offences) Amendment Bill. The drug diversion initiative plays an integral role in helping people with simple possession offences. Offenders are able to address their drug habits with assistance from health professionals rather than entering the costly criminal justice system. The scheme is underpinned by a notion that personal drug use is more appropriately and effectively addressed with a health response rather than with a criminal justice response. SA Police, SA Health and non-government service providers play an important role in ensuring the effectiveness of this program. Drug diversion schemes for simple possession of illicit substances are considered a sensible policy response for first-time offenders.

I believe the proposed amendment under this bill, whilst minor, is also sensible, as echoed by the member for Hartley. This bill, which the opposition supports, would stop a person charged with a serious drug offence from also being diverted for a simple possession offence that has arisen at the same time. As it stands, someone charged with a serious drug offence—such as manufacturing or trafficking—who also happens to be carrying a personal quantity of drugs, will be caught up in the drug diversion process. A diversion under these circumstances is a waste of time, given that an offender—be it a manufacturer or a trafficker—is already caught up in the criminal justice system and is clearly an individual who is at a point in their life where a simple drug diversion program will not be of any assistance.

I believe there is also a community standard that requires those who are trafficking or manufacturing drugs to be dealt with within the criminal justice system. It is also important that those participating in the program use it for the purpose it was intended, as an education program, and as a health response and a program that educates people not to be involved in drugs and with those peddling drugs. A drug division program should not be exploited as an unlimited, never-ending opportunity to avoid genuine punishment and justice.

A 2012 report by South Australia's Attorney-General's Department, 'Ten Years of the South Australian Police Drug Diversion Initiative', found that around one-quarter of the 13,627 individuals diverted over the course of the PDDI had been diverted more than once, 15 per cent had been diverted twice, 5 per cent had been diverted three times, and 4 per cent diverted four or more times. The maximum number of diversions that one person received was 32. That is clearly a shortcoming in the program; I suspect that an offender who has been through the program 32 times is probably not taking it seriously and should face the full force of the law.

We need to ensure that people who perpetually make the same choice, the wrong choice, are not able to repeatedly use the government's diversion program to avoid the courts and criminal convictions. It is our responsibility to ensure that the system cannot be manipulated. As the member for Stuart noted in his contribution to this debate, it is not sensible that the drug diversion system can be applied to a person an unlimited number of times, and I support the amendments previously proposed by the member for Stuart in similar proposed legislation.

Someone who has been diverted once, then twice, should not be able to divert a third time. They should go before the magistrate. That is not to say that going to court means going to gaol, but it means that there is an expectation of what society deems to be appropriate. It would be at the magistrate's discretion, and diversion would still be an option if the magistrate thought it appropriate for repeat offenders.

The bill introduced previously by the member for Stuart would have ensured a decisive approach that offenders would face a court on the third offence. It would have removed the unlimited character of the current legislation. Unfortunately, the government elected to vote against that bill but it did not offer any amendments, and the government did not make an effort to work with the opposition on the legislation. Instead, the government committed to introduce its own proposal into parliament, an alternative proposal that this government claimed would 'enable the prosecution of offenders who do not properly comply with a diversion process or who are not making genuine efforts to get off drugs', as stated by the member for Taylor in her contribution in 2014.

Despite this undertaking, the government bill before us today serves a different purpose and has, in my view, too narrow a focus. It only stops an offender charged with a serious drug offence from being diverted for a concurrent simple possession offence. It does not provide a legislative response to the ability for an offender to be diverted an unlimited number of times.

I do welcome the administrative changes implemented by Drugs and Alcohol Services SA to the procedures for the drug diversion initiative. These changes have already been detailed in the house by the member for Morialta. The essence of the changes means that a person who has been diverted under the scheme more than twice in the previous 24 months will be required to enter into an undertaking. It is a slight but worthy change; however, the government's decision to use an administrative measure does not provide any real certainty to South Australians. Administrative guidelines can be changed at any time.

I conclude by reiterating my support for the current bill, but note that I also support the view that on the third diversion the offender should face the magistrate. I will watch the application of the new administrative approach with much interest.

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) (11:59): I thank those who have spoken in relation to this bill. I welcome the support that has been offered. I note the member for Davenport's remarks and his quite reasonable proposition that we should keep our eye on this and see how it goes, and if it proves not to be as beneficial as we hoped then perhaps we need to revisit this at some point in the future. Can I also say that he resembles a member of the European royal family of the early part of the 20th century with his new look, and I congratulate him on that as well.

I welcome the support of the member for Hartley again. I do always feel when he starts to go through his 'drugs are bad' proposition that we are about to hear a Mr Mackey impersonation, but we never quite get that. I do say thank you very—

Mr Gardner: He's saying drugs are good.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, he says drugs are bad; you have not listened to it. Can I say again, thank you for the encouraging support from members opposite. I do hope this will make an albeit incremental but positive change in the way things are being done. I do say to members—and I know I say this particularly to the member for Morialta and others who, I believe, share this view—that to simply see drug abuse through a criminal paradigm is to largely miss the point. It is a medical issue; it is an issue which requires a little more than simply the heavy hand of incarceration or something to deal with it.

One would hope we could find a way of dealing with simple users. I am not meaning to excuse the use of illegal substances, but if we are talking about users of substance as opposed to those people who traffic in the substances and perpetuate the use of substances, then one would hope that the most humane way of dealing with those people would be to find some way of engaging with them to move them into a different space. I think all members who have spoken seem to be of that view and I think that is very positive.

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) (12:02): 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