HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-04-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES (DRUG DETECTION POWERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 April 2008. Page 2182.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (21:31): I rise to support the second reading. My colleague the Hon. Mr Ridgeway has spoken already outlining the Liberal Party's position on the legislation, and I support his comments. It probably does not surprise you, Mr President, or indeed the minister, that I would rise to speak on this particular issue, because the interests of Molly, Jay and Hooch, the three dogs trained two dog years ago and 14 human years ago to do this job have been close to my heart since 2006, and whilst there is a touch of humour in the perils of Molly, Jay and Hooch—

The Hon. D.G.E. Hood: Two human years and 14 dog years.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Two human years and 14 dog years—is that right? I had it the wrong way around. I am indebted to my dog adviser, the Hon. Mr Hood. This legislation is sadly the perfect indication of what is wrong with this government and with this minister in relation to important legislative reforms. The potted history of this issue is that back in about May/June 2006, almost two years ago, this minister was advised that whilst these dogs were being trained—and I will go into the detail of that in a tick—or about to be trained (I think they were trained throughout the period of June and July 2006) for them to operate there needed to be important legislative change.

Having spoken to a number of concerned police officers in the period of September/October 2006 (I think) when there was no sign of any action from the minister or the government on this issue, I raised the matter for the first time in the parliament and said, 'There's almost half a million dollars worth of trained drug-detecting machines sitting out there not being able to do what they were trained to do.'

We are not just talking about three trained labradors; of course, there are three individual handlers who had to be trained as well. There is a 10-week program involved. Handlers came across from New South Wales, that state already having passive alert detection dogs in operation, and trained not just these three dogs, which at that stage where young and looking forward to the task ahead, but also the three officers in relation to the important work that they were about to do.

In and around that time the government, as is its wont, was very anxious to be out there spinning this particular story to the best of their ability, and just one of the stories in July of that year (2006)—the period when they were going through their training—there was a lovely story in The Advertiser of 19 July. An article by Sam Riches, headed 'Drug sniffer dogs on patrol in city', states:

Morning commuters at the Adelaide Railway Station were yesterday greeted by new drug-sniffing dogs on a training run.'

Without reading all of it, I point out that it highlights that three labradors were being trained by New South Wales police instructors; that they work in a similar way to customs dogs at airports, sitting down when narcotics are detected; and that they were six weeks into a 10-week program. Let me quote the following:

The dogs are doing extremely well and should start working by the end of August [2006]. Senior Sergeant Peter Cheeseman, officer in charge of the dog operations unit said, 'The animals had passed all tests. They are new and innovative for South Australia. Everything is in place to go. Now we just want to go out and find the drug dealers,' he said.

This is July 2006. They were raring to go. Whilst all that was going on; whilst all this wonderful publicity and spin doctoring was going on by the minister and the government in relation to this important drug detection project, the minister had had advice: 'Look, we're training these dogs, with three full-time officers and three dogs raring to go, but minister, you've actually got to do something. You've got to change the legislation. You've got to get off your backside—we know you enjoy your office—and you've got to change the legislation so that we can allow these dogs to do what we are training them to. Now, we are happy to do this 10 week course; we are happy to be raring to go, but all you have to do, minister, is change the legislation.'

That is not an unreasonable request, I would have thought. The taxpayers are spending almost $500,000 to train and pay for the dogs and the officers to look after them, and all those sorts of things, and they say, 'Well, look; just as a trade-off, minister—one little thing: can you just introduce the legislation and change it so that Molly, Jay and Hooch can get on with the job?' And, as Senior Sergeant Peter Cheeseman said, 'We're going to go after them and get those drug dealers' as of August 2006.

Where are we, Mr President? We are now in April 2008—almost two years later, and this invigorated, innovative, active government minister has finally got around to introducing legislation into the parliament. So, maybe in another month the legislation, having gone through both houses—we will then have to wait for the minister to get it proclaimed—Molly, Jay and Hooch might actually be able to get on with the task for which they were being trained almost two years ago. That is assuming that they are still fit enough to be able to do the tasks for which they were trained almost two years ago.

As I said, I first raised this issue in October 2006. At that time the minister had a wonderful spin, as they all do when under pressure on these sorts of things. You do not actually answer the question that is put to you by the journalist or by the member of the opposition. I told the minister that you have $500,000 worth of dogs and officers not being able to do the job for which they are trained. They are not trained for the normal drug bust the current dog squad does: these are passive alert detention dogs. They are to be used in circumstances where the current dogs are not trained to go. They go down Rundle Street to the clubs and nightclubs where any of us who have any association with young people will know that the drug culture is rampant. Even some hotels—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Even some hotels. Well, Mr President, I think there are some ministers in your administration who have first-hand knowledge of some of the clubs and hotels of which I speak. I am not suggesting anything untoward in terms of their behaviour there, but they certainly have experience of those locations. They are to go to events such as the Big Day Out. Heaven forbid if they were let loose in WOMADelaide.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Wherever. I am looking forward to the passive alert detention dogs being let loose in WOMADelaide. I drive past it on Dequetteville Terrace. You do not have to go into WOMADelaide to know what is being inhaled both actively and passively. There is also the Big Day Out, sporting events and entertainment venues. I will ask a question about this. They refer to a lot of events that young people go to, but I will be interested to know whether, for example, it includes the State Theatre Company or the festival events that older South Australians go to.

Let us be honest about it, because it is not just young South Australians who are not following the law of the land in terms of participation in the drug culture of the state and the nation. It would be interesting to know whether the police and the minister intend to target not just the young people and their venues but also some of the venues of people of a slightly older age.

The Hon. Sandra Kanck: They won't send them into WOMADelaide.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: That would be interesting to know, but that is what they were trained to do. Of course, when this was first raised in October, the minister was saying, both in parliament and in the media, 'Look, the South Australian police are currently working on what they believe are the legislative requirements, and as soon as they complete those'—and remember that this was in October 2006—'and hand the submission in, that will be referred to the Attorney-General and the legislation will come through.'

The clear impression was, 'Hey, we are right on top of this. The police are working on it. Straight through to Attorney-General Atkinson and the legislation will come through in the very near future in terms of it being resolved.' That was in 2006. Of course, he was also saying at the time, 'Well, look, it is not true what the opposition is saying. Of course we are using these dogs'. He denied the accusation from the opposition.

As I said, our accusation was quite specific. They were trained to do a specific task. They were not trained to do the same tasks as all the existing dogs are doing because we have dogs to do that sort of thing, but of course the minister would not answer that question. The other question the minister would not answer in November 2006, when I asked it for the second time, was: when was he or his office first advised that the legislation would need to be changed or amended?

He came back with a partial answer at one stage which said, 'Look, I've got no record of a police request prior to the Estimates Committee in 2006.' That, of course, was not the question that was asked. When was he or his office first advised that he had to change the legislation?

I invite the minister, whilst this is being debated and when he responds to the second reading, to put on the record when he was first advised in relation to that, because the information given to me by police was that he was advised in that period and no later than around May or June 2006—well before I first raised this issue in October 2006—that this was an important issue that needed to be resolved.

In November he was saying things like, 'I can find no record of the police up until the time of the estimates requesting that legislation be moved in relation to those dogs.' Again, as I said, he did not answer the question.

Then, in November, he said, 'As soon as we receive the submission, we will certainly give it rapid consideration.' I do not know the minister's definition of 'rapid', but from November 2006 through to April 2008 is not my definition of 'rapid consideration' by this minister and this government in terms of the legislation.

I raised the issue again on a number of occasions—including the Big Day Out in January 2007—highlighting the fact that the specially trained drug detection dogs were not able to do their job at the Big Day Out. I am sure everyone at the Big Day Out would have been delighted that the specially trained Molly, Jay and Hooch were licking their chops, or wagging their tails back in their kennel, not being able to do the job of chasing the drug criminals, as Senior Sergeant Cheesman was saying from August 2006.

I am sure that everyone at the Big Day Out was delighted that minister Holloway was still sitting on his backside in his ministerial office and had not even got around to introducing the legislation into parliament.

Again, in March 2007, we raised the issue with the minister and said, 'Look, you told us 'rapid consideration' in November. You said as soon as you get it, you will be getting it into parliament in November 2006. You were making those commitments. In March 2007 there was still nothing in relation to it.' So, what did the minister say in March 2007? The Minister said:

I know that it is absolutely true. Allegations such as those made by the shadow minister for police that they have not been able to do their job are not true.

That is what the minister said. He said that allegations that the shadow minister had been making that they were not able to do their job were not true. What the minister said was not true. What the dogs were being asked to do was what all the other dogs—not the passive alert detection dogs— were doing, that is, the job for which they were trained, namely, this passive alert detection work in the sorts of venues and fora to which I have referred.

So, for the minister to say what he did in the chamber is, frankly, a clear case of misleading the council. However, I am a generous man—there were so many of them from this minister on this issue that I did not pursue the issue of misleading the council. His statement that 'they have not been able to do their job are not true' was an untrue statement and clearly demonstrable as an untrue statement. The minister went further, sadly for him, and said:

No. As I said, they were purchased with the intention of deploying them in accordance with existing practices, and that is what they are doing.

That was untrue. The minister knew it was untrue. As I said, I believe that he was told back in May or June of 2006. He might be arguing that he did not know until June or July 2006; but, certainly by March 2007, for the minister to stand up in the chamber and say, 'They were purchased with the intention of deploying them in accordance with existing practices, and that is what they are doing', was clearly untrue, because he is now introducing legislation which is proof positive of what I was saying at the time and is now proof positive that he recognises the fact that they were not purchased and trained to work in accordance with existing practices.

As the police minister, the police told him, 'Hey, you have got to change the law. The existing legislation, which is the critical determinant of existing practices, does not allow us to do what we are trained to do.' That is what Molly, Jay and Hooch would have said to you, minister, if they could talk, or if you could understand them.

Certainly that is what the police were saying to the minister in relation to this issue, and he was saying in March 2007 that they were purchased with the intention of being deployed in accordance with the existing practices. What did the minister say in March 2007? Remember that it was going to be rapidly introduced in November 2006. In March 2007, the minister said:

I would hope that we would introduce the legislation in the next session, which is not all that many weeks away.

This was March 2007 and he was going to introduce the legislation. There was another example in late 2007. Again, I will not go through all the details, but the minister's position continued to wobble down that path of promising that their legislation would be introduced as soon as possible and that he was working hard on the legislation.

As I said at the outset, this legislation, sadly, I think, is a pretty fair indication of the problems of this government, that is, it is lazy. It is either lazy, incompetent, negligent or all of the above in relation to important legislative reform. It is delighted at being able to get positive publicity, such as the article to which I referred back in July 2006, in the media in relation to being tough on drugs and being tough on chasing the drug criminals, and so on.

However, when it comes to doing the hard yards or the hard metres, doing the work and introducing the legislation into the parliament, this minister, sadly, and this government even more sadly, have been found wanting. The minister did raise some issues in his second reading explanation which I want to raise to see what his final response is. In one of the answers to questions he raised the issue about schools, and he said that he and the government were having to contemplate whether or not these dogs would be able to be used in schools.

I specifically asked the minister for the government's advice on this issue; that is, whether the legislation would be able to be used under certain circumstances in the school or educational environment. I do not just ask about schools, I ask about TAFE institutions and university campuses as well, because there might be a more productive use of the dogs in some of those institutions than perhaps in some schools. The minister in one of his answers also raised the issue and said:

The point I would like to make is that, where these sniffer dogs can detect an odour, they cannot detect whether the drug is present at that time or was present in the past. They can detect that there is a smell, but it may be that a person does not have a drug on them but have had it in the past. That is another issue that needs to be clarified legally.

Will the minister confirm whether that is still his view in relation to the operation of the dogs and, if it is, what has been his and the government's resolution in relation to the issue that he says would need to be clarified legally before he could introduce legislation?

There are one other two other specific issues in relation to clauses that I will leave to the committee stage of the legislation. Suffice to say that, albeit far too late, as the Hon. Mr Ridgway has previously indicated, the Liberal Party is a strong supporter of the legislation. Certainly not just as a member of parliament but as a parent, with young people going through that stage of both schooling and educational institutions, and now clubs, nightclubs and entertainment venues where drugs are certainly a part of the culture, it seems to me to make absolute sense to have an initiative such as this where the passive alert drug detection dogs can be used; and that young people—and, as I said, older South Australians as well—in certain venues will know that, if they do have drugs on them—in their pockets, their handbags, purses or their man bags (whatever it is that they happen to be carrying at the time)—Molly, Jay or Hooch may sit down quietly next to them as they queue up outside HQ, the Vodka Bar, Escobar, or wherever else in the city—

The Hon. M. Parnell: The Adelaide Club.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Adelaide Club, as the Hon. Mr Parnell suggests—he might know something that I do not—the Labor caucus, as the President suggests, or wherever. In conclusion, I have to say that, when you are at an airport and the little beagles come sniffing around your luggage, even though you know absolutely that you do not participate in the drug culture, you always wonder and think, 'Gee, I hope that little Molly, Jay or Hooch equivalent does not sit down next to my suitcase or bag because they happen to smell food or whatever.'

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Guilty.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: As I said, I have no guilty conscience at all, but I have seen enough movies about young people proclaiming that someone else put something into their suitcase, bag or luggage to know. There is no doubt that it will impact on behaviour if it is well publicised and if it becomes well known to young people that Molly, Jay, Hooch (if they are still alive), or their equivalents will be patrolling Hindley Street on a Friday and Saturday night, and if you are queuing up outside one of these nightclubs and Molly, Jay or Hooch sits down next to you, a police officer will say, 'I now have the authority to conduct a search on you for potential drugs.' That is an entirely positive message and one that we on this side of the chamber strongly support. We are disappointed that it has been two years since it was first undertaken.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

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