HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-03-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CRIMINAL ASSETS CONFISCATION (PRESCRIBED DRUG OFFENDERS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 February 2012.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (16:20): I rise to speak on behalf of the opposition on the Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offenders) Amendment Bill. This is another example of the government's mismanagement of its legislative program. Following so soon after the last bill, it is probably more than a pattern.

This bill was so urgent that, on the first day of sitting this year, with less than 24 hours' notice, the government suspended the standing orders of the House of Assembly to progress the bill. The opposition supported the suspension, and it passed the house in 24 hours. Yet, the following sitting week it was not even a priority for the government in this Legislative Council.

It was urgent enough to suspend standing orders in the house; it was not even urgent enough to be on the priority list in the Legislative Council. That reflects a government which is driven by spin, not outcomes. Its sense of urgency is driven by public relations, not public safety.

The Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offenders) Amendment Bill 2011 was introduced by minister Koutsantonis on 18 May 2011. The bill follows through with the ALP election pledge to confiscate the assets of repeat drug offenders to the point of bankruptcy, even when confiscated assets had no connection to criminal activity. This bill before us is a reintroduction of the bill in the same form.

This council, in my view, is again debating legislation which is bad law: bad law driven by public relations spin rather than by evidence-based policy. It is also a significant affront to legal principles and basic fairness, and it does nothing to make South Australia a safer place.

The Liberal Party traditionally has no problem with targeting the profits of criminals. In this aspect, the policy that the government took to the last election affirms the law as it stands. It is a longstanding principle of common law that criminals are not entitled to profit from their crimes, and South Australia has well-developed legislative schemes to deprive criminals of the proceeds of crime and the instruments of crime.

I remind the council that it was the Liberal Party which led calls for unexplained wealth legislation in South Australia, calls that were taken up by the Rann government in due course. The Attorney-General said in a press release on 16 May 2011:

Criminal gangs typically use the proceeds of drug trafficking to create a lavish lifestyle as well as build their criminal capabilities.

I make the point to the council that if a drug trafficker is using the proceeds of crime to create a lavish lifestyle, as the Attorney-General suggests, and they are getting away with it, either it is a failure of the government to use existing proceeds of crime legislation to confiscate those assets or there is a problem with the legislation and we should get it back into the parliament.

As I have said, the Liberal Party strongly and consistently continues to support legislation to confiscate the proceeds of crime, the instruments of crime and unexplained wealth. However, there is one aspect of this legislation that is novel, and we do not support it. We believe that it could, in fact, be counterproductive. The ALP policy commitment reads:

All of a convicted offender's property can be confiscated, whether or not it is established as unlawfully acquired, and whether or not there is any level of proof about any property at all.

At least they are honest in their baldness. That issue goes to the heart of the legislation. This legislation moves away from the focus on the crime to authorise the state to confiscate people's lawfully acquired assets. The bill proposes to allow the confiscation of assets of commercial and repeat drug offenders to the point of bankruptcy, even when those assets have been lawfully acquired. Under the bill, if an offender has committed a single commercial drug offence or three or more specified drug offences within 10 years, they would be liable to be declared a declared drug trafficker and subject to the confiscation regime.

Western Australia and the Northern Territory have schemes similar to that proposed. In the last seven years of the scheme in Western Australia, 596 declarations have been made and $35 million confiscated. Given that these figures also include the proceeds of crime confiscated in these cases, it is not possible to know what proportion of that confiscation is related to the proceeds of crime, instruments of crime, unexplained wealth that I was referring to and how much relates to this element—that is, confiscation to the bankruptcy level.

In spite of the fact that we need to wind back that average, the average is only $59,000 per case. That suggests there is a significant number of relatively minor operators who are being subjected to legislation of this type in Western Australia. In the context of that $59,000, I remind the council that a number of primary offences under South Australian law already carry a fine of up to $500,000 and life imprisonment.

Confiscation to the bankruptcy level, because it lacks a nexus with the crime, is in fact moving more into the nature of a fine and, considering the level of penalty, one would ask if the government considers that the legislated penalty is not sufficient, why is it not increasing it? This is a move not to increase the standard penalties but to introduce what is basically an income-based fine.

The government has not given us a justification as to how this legislation will actually reduce drug trafficking. In fact, the bankrupting of drug offenders may actually have the opposite effect. It may increase drug offending because the offender, pushed to the point of bankruptcy, may well be pushed to the point of desperation and may again turn to crime. Considering that we, as a parliament, supported legislation in 2008 to disrupt and destroy criminal organisations, I do not know why we are pushing people into the arms of those organisations.

If you are bankrupted by this legislation and you also have a significant fine under criminal law, and your partner and the family is at home trying to support itself, where will that family turn? Where will the offender turn? I suggest they are very likely to turn to the criminal organisation they were originally associated with. You actually drive them deeper into the organisation; you are not giving them an opportunity of escape.

I also fear that confiscation to the point of bankruptcy will disproportionately affect children and other innocent people. We need to remember the risk that children in a crime family are in. Almost by definition a crime family is dysfunctional. The fact that members of the family are willing to maintain their lifestyle through criminal activity shows a disregard for law, and, as we see in many reports, that disregard for law is not just going to be in relation to their business enterprises. We have heard terrible stories about people involved in motorcycle gangs who display levels of domestic violence which are just incomprehensible.

So, the children and dependants (for example, wives, girlfriends, whatever) of members of outlaw motorcycle gangs are already at risk from the member of the gang themselves, but statistics show us that the risk of a child of an offender becoming an offender is acute. My understanding is that 40 per cent of prisoners in state prisons have an immediate relative—it may go as far as cousins, I think, but I am pretty sure it was not just the immediate family—have a member of the family who had been an offender.

I am reminded of the Justice Reinvestment Forum that the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Attorney-General and I co-hosted in this parliament last Friday and, as I understand it, a member of the Indigenous community reflected that, I think, for four generations every adult member of her family had served time in prison.

The point I am making here is that, as a parliament, when we are imposing fines of up to $500,000 and life imprisonment on the offender (and so be it; that is what justice requires) let us be careful that we actually do not exacerbate a chronic problem; we do not exacerbate a problem with the dependants and the children of offenders and actually increase the risk of them becoming offenders. Not only would that be a tragedy for them, it would be a tragedy for us.

They are much more likely to go out and engage in crime, and that means more victims, more people suffering at the hands of criminals in our community. It is almost as though the government wants to encourage crime in our community, because it is picking on a subgroup which is already at risk: they are at risk of harm to themselves and they are at risk of offending and causing harm to the rest us. I just cannot find the logic in the government's approach to this.

In any case, the fight against organised crime is far broader than drugs so, if the government thinks that it has got a whiz-bang solution to organised crime, then why just focus on drugs? Why does this legislation not apply to a whole raft of organised crime activities? The Law Society has commented on this bill, and it will not surprise the parliament that it has expressed its opposition in the strongest terms.

Now, I know that the government will throw up the usual suspects, and unless the Law Society is agreeing with them they will decry them, but this language that the lawyers are using I think is unusually strong and therefore it should cause this house to ponder. The Law Society says that it:

...considers the legislation to be inimical to a free society—

It is almost as bad as minister Wortley trying to say 'susceptibility'—

which applies the rule of law and encourages the citizen to be self-sufficient. To say it is draconian only tells a fraction of the story.

The Law Society in very detailed advice to members of this house raised a range of concerns. It said that its strong opposition includes factors such as legality. They believe that the bill may infringe the Kable principle. Secondly, they were concerned about a lack of nexus: there is no nexus between the offence and the assets seized. They were concerned about additional punishment. The scheme provides for a punishment over and above that for the actual offending.

They thought it was discriminatory because the bill discriminates against citizens who are legally industrious and acquire wealth. They thought that it was offensive because it attacked innocent parties: the seizures of the assets may deprive the citizen's family of the assets regardless of whether they are dependents. They also considered that it offended due process. The current assets confiscation legislation entitles citizens facing confiscation to appeal to a court. This bill does not even provide them with that right.

The Australian Lawyers Alliance also shared the Law Society's concerns. They said that the bill unfortunately bears witness to a further erosion of the rights and principles central to the administration of justice. Later in a submission it said that this bill represents a horrendous incursion into the rights of citizens, with legislation being drafted which essentially eases the burden upon the prosecuting authority to prove its case.

That is, if you like, the key policy plank of the bill. An element which I find just as offensive is the key financial plank of this bill and that is that this legislation says that we are going to change a long-established practice of this parliament that we will dedicate the proceeds of assets confiscation to the victims. To me that has wonderful symmetry.

Why would you not dedicate the proceeds of asset confiscation, proceeds of crime, instruments of crime and unexplained wealth to help victims? After all, they have suffered through crime. But, no, this government, after 10 years of mismanagement, has clause 36 in this legislation which proposes to establish a 'justice resources fund'. The fund's stated purpose is to provide for the provision of courts infrastructure, equipment or services.

That seems to be an indication—almost like a plea from the dark—of an Attorney-General who has not been able to carry the day in his own cabinet to have, if you like, normal government revenues dedicated to the capital and recurrent needs of the courts.

I met with representatives of the bar council last week and they were very keen to highlight to me the deficiencies that they see, particularly in our Supreme Court building. They believed that it was a significant impediment on the delivery of justice in South Australia, so it is not surprising to see that the fund has that focus. It is also meant to have the focus of the provision of programs and facilities within the justice system for dealing with drug and related crime.

This is clearly an attempt to cope with 10 years of Labor mismanagement. The assets seized under the bill will fund the Attorney-General's Department and other justice portfolio responsibilities. After 10 years of Labor mismanagement, our state finances are in such a parlous state and justice is such a low priority that the Attorney-General needs to set up a hypothecated fund which basically steals from victims.

Let me stress again: under existing criminal assets legislation, confiscated funds are put into the Victims of Crime Fund but, under this legislation, both that part of the confiscation that relates to proceeds of crime, instruments of crime and unexplained wealth, together with this additional confiscation, will go into this new justice resources fund.

I commend the Hons Dennis Hood and Robert Brokenshire for highlighting the government's failure to properly utilise the Victims of Crime Fund and I should also acknowledge the private member's bill that the Hon. Ann Bressington had last year, which was specifically addressing the issue of the maximum threshold.

A number of members of this house share my concern that the government is mismanaging the Victims of Crime Fund, and what is their response? To divert money away from it. To take money that traditionally would go towards alleviating the distress of victims of crime around South Australia and divert it into a fund which is basically a budget replacement fund. Money that would normally come from state revenues for general purposes is now going to come from this justice resources fund. It is basically robbing the victims to pay Treasury.

Legal stakeholders have also expressed concern that not only is this legislation bad policy, it may in fact be unconstitutional. It is their view that the legislation may offend the Kable principle as set out in Kable v the Director of Public Prosecutions (New South Wales) in 1996. There have also been similar conclusions drawn from the International Finance Trust Company Ltd. v the New South Wales Crime Commission in 2009.

To be fair, on this point the legal stakeholders and the government agree. The government also acknowledges the constitutional risk in its own bill. I quote from the second reading contribution of minister Gago, who stated:

Under the WA scheme and its counterpart in the Northern Territory, all of the declared drug trafficker's assets are subject to forfeiture...The government has taken the view that, under the current attitude of the High Court, such a scheme is, if challenged, likely to be held unconstitutional. So, in order to ameliorate the harshness of the scheme, it is proposed that the prescribed drug trafficker forfeit everything except what a bankrupt would be allowed to keep.

The government talks about ameliorating the harshness of unconstitutionality. Given this government's record (and I would say reckless record) with constitutionally risky legislation, they are not reassuring words. Let's remember that, in 2009, after the Supreme Court found that section 14(1) of the Serious and Organised Crime Act was unconstitutional, the Liberal Party urged the government to bring the legislation back to the parliament to make sure that it stayed within constitutional bounds, basically so that the police could get access to the tool as soon as possible.

But what did the government do? The government decided it would ignore the opportunity for expeditious parliamentary consideration and take it to the High Court. That involved the waste of hundreds of thousands of dollars and valuable time. In my view, even if the government wanted to try to expand the scope of the legislation and, if you like, test it in the High Court, it should have brought the bill back to the parliament and at least as an interim measure get the full scheme operating.

The Attorney-General has adverted to this legislation. I think it was in the debate on this legislation in the House of Assembly on 14 February. He, if you like, linked the Sentencing Considerations Bill with this legislation and said:

...if you are dopey enough to get involved in this stuff, you still have a 'Get out of jail free' card...You still have that card if you 'fess up and you start telling the 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 [assets confiscation] either.

It is amazing that a government who claims to be tough on crime is instead promoting a law which proposes to excuse criminals in relation to both their punishment and their asset confiscation.

The opposition has amendments filed which seek to amend the bill to remove the elements of the bill that it believes are harmful: those elements which are harmful to victims; those that are not based on good policy; those that we believe are unconstitutional; and those that serve no purpose in reducing crime. We will support the technical amendments, which finetune the existing regime.

I have a number of questions at the second reading stage to which I will seek a response. How many people does the government consider have charges that have been laid under the Controlled Substances Act for offences relevant to this bill? How many people do these charges relate to, and how many convictions has this resulted in?

The relevance of that is that this legislation, in relation to non-commercial quantities, will impact after a person has committed—I think it is on the third occasion that this penalty is available. How many people have been convicted of a commercial drug offence across the state and how many convicted offenders currently have two or more of the prescribed drug offences referred to in the bill? If the government does not have this information to hand I request that it be provided before the council moves into committee consideration.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (16:44): I will only make a very brief contribution to this bill because I spoke on the previous bill in the previous session of parliament, on 13 September 2011. I would just like to say that this bill reminds me of the old convict days where starving people would go around stealing loaves of bread to feed their family and be whipped or have their hand cut off for stealing. In saying this, I bring up the first international conference on justice that I attended in WA. Mr Paul Meyer, who is a criminal lawyer in that state, discussed this very bill that is going ahead in Western Australia as well, but they do have the three strikes and you're out rule.

Mr Meyer gave the example of one of his clients. Let us keep in mind that we all know that there are many people who are doing it tough out there. Many people are losing their jobs and many people are actually losing their houses because they are defaulting on their mortgages because they cannot afford to pay. Mr Meyer's client was a father of four who had worked hard all his life. Some six months ago, he lost his job. He had a well-paid job which enabled his wife to be a stay at home mum. He was quite able to accumulate the asset that he has, which is his home. Then he lost his job and was out of work for six months, unable to find employment.

In that six-month period he has had a bit of part-time work here and there. Not having been in the workforce for many years, his wife was also unable to find work. Their children were going to a private school and they had to be pulled out of that school and sent to a state school. They had to cut corners and they were defaulting on their mortgage.

Mr Meyer's client was approached by a colleague from his previous workplace and asked to transport an amount of bagged marijuana in his car over the border for $3,000. He agreed to do that. He did not tell his wife what he was doing. He told her that he and his mate were going on a fishing trip, so she was absolutely unaware that he was engaging in illegal behaviour. He was doing it for the $3,000 to catch up on his mortgage payment. They were caught. As Mr Meyer explains, under this legislation, he would have lost everything, and his wife and children would have been out on the street.

So I ask members here to consider the whole tough on drugs, tough on crime thing. Nobody could ever accuse me of being soft on drug dealers or any of that. I believe that if you do the crime, you do the time; but, as the Hon. Stephen Wade mentioned, let us keep the nexus between the crime and the punishment. None of the assets that this gentleman owned would ever have been accumulated through illegal conduct or illicit means. One mistake and you are gone, and so is your wife and family—on the street with nowhere to go and nowhere to live, left with your most basic possessions. It could be a washing machine and a dishwasher, if you are lucky enough to own one.

I believe with all my heart that if we want a system that is going to work then it cannot just be a law and order agenda because, if we just focus on law and order and ignore justice as the desired outcome, we are not doing ourselves or any citizen of this state a favour. We are not going to catch the Mr Bigs doing this sort of stuff. I told the Attorney-General that I believe that the so-called package to this SOCCA legislation is dragnet legislation. We are creating the possibility for people, ordinary every-day people, to be turned into criminals overnight.

I think we as legislators need to be very careful with what we are going to allow to occur in the government's law and order agenda in the name of catching the bikies and the Mr Bigs and what impact that will have on people who may make the wrong choices in times of hardship, but don't we all? Some of my decisions in the past as a single mum with four kids some people would now think were quite questionable as well, but you do what you do to put food on the table and keep a roof over your kids' heads.

Mr Meyer talked at the conference for an hour, breaking down this bill—and it is exactly the same as ours, except they had the three strikes and you are out. The other quick point I would like to make is that, as the Hon. Stephen Wade said, we are going to end up pushing people into crime if we are going to take this hard-nosed, unjust approach. I am all for law and order, but I would also like to see justice delivered at the end of this, that is, to put the bad guys in gaol and the other people caught up in the dragnet need some sort of defence and some way out of this.

I was interested, when I had a meeting with the Attorney-General, and we were not talking about this but about the sentencing bill and I said, 'So people who give evidence against these high-class criminals, these bikies, literally paint a target on their head when they finish dealing with the police', and the Attorney-General's response was, 'Well, that may well be, but that is the collateral damage.' I cannot reconcile myself to this mentality.

It was the same with my discussion with the Premier yesterday about the shop trading hours bill and the effect it will have on the non-government sector and the comment was, 'Costs mean just a reduction in services.' Just a reduction in services! What does that mean? Someone hanging on to their life by a thread is told, 'Look, you're going to have to ring back Monday; we don't have the funds to actually be able to pay our counsellors now on these long weekends, because it is double time and a half.'

We are losing our grip on this, all in the name of this government being able to get its SOCCA legislation through and its 'tough on crime' bills through before 2014 and be able to say, 'Look what we've done.' I will not be a part of this. I am not support these unreasonable bills, and I hope the Attorney-General will take the comments of the Law Society and what has been said in here today by the Hon. Stephen Wade, myself and others in the previous session to heart and realise that we actually expect more of ourselves than this. I leave that with you.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (16:53): I take this opportunity to make a few comments and to respond to some of the issues and questions raised during the second reading contributions. I thank honourable members for their second reading contributions, although clearly there is no support for this bill, which is very disappointing.

The bill does three things: it implements the election pledge of 2010 of the government in relation to the confiscation of assets of certain serious drug offenders; it confirms the result of the decision of the Full Court in the case of the DPP v George 2008 [SASC 330]; and, finally, it makes some minor drafting changes to the principal act thought desirable by parliamentary counsel.

The bill has been reintroduced after it was literally hacked to pieces in this house last year. The effect of the amendments tabled last year was not to improve the operation of the bill, as has been claimed. The effect of the amendments tabled by the Hon. Stephen Wade in 2011 was quite simply to delete all those parts of the bill dealing with the election policy, leaving only the other two very minor aspects of the bill unaffected.

The bill is a major measure. The bill is not only an election policy, it is an integral part of a series of linked measures that the government is presently taking to tackle the very real problems posed by the activities of organised criminal gangs. The bill should not be seen in isolation; rather it should be viewed as an important part of a wider series of linked measures the government is taking in this area. Honourable members may note that even the Law Society has given its qualified support to this series of measures, having regard to the gravity of the problem posed by organised criminal gangs.

The main policy of the bill has been well understood by those who oppose it. The original policy was to effectively bankrupt those drug dealers either convicted of a commercial serious drug offence or convicted of three or more minor but nevertheless still serious offences of trafficking, manufacturing or the like in relation to drugs. The property of such offenders would be liable for confiscation, whether or not the property represents the proceeds of crime. The bill is designed to remove a financial inducement for criminals to become involved in drug dealing. The policy in the bill reflects a more generous version of legislative schemes in force in Western Australia and the Northern Territory.

The simple answer to anyone concerned about falling within the bill and risking the seizure of their property is really simple: if you do not want to be captured by this bill, do not deal in serious and commercial drug dealing, or do not repeatedly deal in drugs. The message is really simple and it is really clear. These are very serious offences, and the penalty associated with it should reflect the level of seriousness of the offence. Even if a convicted drug dealer falls within the scope of the bill, there is still ample scope in the bill for the offender to avoid the confiscation of their property if they cooperate with the authorities. Such cooperation can play a major role in combating crime, especially in respect of serious and organised crime.

The bill was never designed to catch minor offenders, such as a student of previous good character who is cultivating a few cannabis plants to earn some extra income. The bill was always designed to catch only those involved in commercial and serious or repeated drug dealing. I repeat that it was intended to apply only to those convicted of commercial serious drug offence or those convicted of three or more minor but nevertheless still serious offences of trafficking, manufacturing or the like in relation to drugs.

I think that what we have seen here today in terms of second reading contributions is extremely disappointing and I think a real cop-out. There is an opportunity here to put in place a measure to assist in dealing with these serious offenders. It is one of a number of measures that are being considered, or have been considered, and I think that it is a real abdication of responsibility by those members and parties that are not going to support this bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Considering the minister has moved into committee, I presume she has got the answers to the questions I asked during the second reading stage. I seek those answers.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I do apologise; I meant to address those in my second reading summary. I have been advised that the figures that the honourable member has requested are not readily available. We would need to take those on notice and bring back a response as soon as it is available.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I do not know how this committee can assess the comments that the minister made in summation that the application of this legislation would be very narrow and to very few people. We do not know how many people are charged with these offenses, we do not know how many people are at No. 2 ready for No. 3. I would have thought that, if the government had researched this as a matter of policy, that information would be available.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I indicate that Family First will support the legislation, but I think the Hon. Mr Wade has a point, that he does deserve to have his questions answered. We would be inclined to support his position unless the minister can provide answers to his question.

The CHAIR: What are we doing now?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am waiting for the minister to respond to Mr Hood's point. Even though he is indicating that he is inclined to support the government's bill, even members who would be inclined to support the government's bill deserve to do so on an informed basis. I would suggest that, if the government is not able to provide basic data about its bill, it should report progress and we could consider it on the next day of sitting.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Meaning no disrespect to the Hon. Denis Hood, the answer is the same. I have been advised that the figures are not readily available, and we would need some time to get that response.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Well, I am just giving you the answer. I have answered the question. That is the best that I can do, and I am in your hands.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Perhaps I could ask another question so that the minister might come back with an answer, unless she is able to answer it now. In her summing up she claimed that the Law Society supports the government's integrated crime package—words to that effect.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Qualified.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Yes; indeed. I take it that the minister was saying that the Law Society has given qualified support to this bill.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the Law Society put out a media release that indicated qualified support to the series of measures that we were planning to put in place.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would ask the minister to bring in proof of that.

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Well, honestly, I do not believe that is true. Let me remind the minister what the Law Society said. It said that this legislation—

The Hon. M. Parnell: Is inimical.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: It was inimical; that's right. It was not susceptible at all, it was inimical, or something; something that I know was very bad. They said it was draconian. The Australian Lawyers Alliance said that it was an attack on basic principles of justice.

The Hon. M. Parnell interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The Hon. Mark Parnell reminds me of that wonderful second reading speech he gave on a previous occasion, where he quoted this paragraph from a letter of the Law Society to the Attorney-General dated 14 June 2001. The key paragraph states:

The Bill is inimical to a free society which applies the rule of law and encourages the citizen to be self-sufficient. To say that it is draconian only tells a fraction of the story. A citizen should not be deprived of his or her lawfully acquired assets because he commits an offence.

I know that the Law Society is open to change its mind—we have a free society. But if the government is telling us that they have changed their mind, I would like to have confirmation of that. I take it that the minister cannot give that today and, considering that there are other matters upon which she has undertaken to come back to us, I suggest that we report progress—sorry, I do not suggest that at all.

The CHAIR: It is no good suggesting anything; you have to move something if you want to get anywhere.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Just to help out the Hon. Stephen Wade and the minister, I can say that I spoke with Ralph Bonig from the Law Society just this morning at about quarter past 10. We were discussing this bill, and it seems that the Law Society has not changed its position on the bill at all.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The minister might reflect on the fact that she has misled this council twice in an hour.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Wade might think that is the case but it might not be the case.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I did not avail myself of the opportunity to make a second reading speech because I made a reasonable contribution last time. The Greens' position has not changed; we do not like this bill at all. We agree with the Law Society's position. It is bad law and does not warrant support.

If the government is keen to push ahead to a vote and see the bill voted down then we can do that, I do not mind. If the Hon. Stephen Wade wants to report progress he can do that as well. I guess the different view I have to that of the honourable member is that I cannot see that any answer the minister provides will change our view, so I am not as desperate to wait for that answer. I am happy to vote this bill down today. I think that is what it deserves.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am happy to proceed.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I oppose this clause. This would be what I would call a relatively simple amendment in the sense that it would change the long title of the act. The fact that it is simple does not mean that it is not significant; it actually highlights the change in focus that this legislation will experience if this bill is passed. Deleting the clause would delete the words 'proceeds and instruments of crime' from the long title of the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2005—

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Is this an amendment you are speaking to?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Yes; [Wade-1] 1.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We have not received any amendments; there are no tabled amendments.

The CHAIR: They were tabled at 2.27pm today.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am happy for the minister to report progress.

The CHAIR: You keep mentioning it.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I was not suggesting it, Mr Chairman. I have been rebuked in that regard. I am not allowed to use the word 'suggest'.

The CHAIR: You have been happy for the minister to do it, but you haven't got anywhere else. It is not an amendment; you are actually saying that you want clause 4 struck out.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: That is the effect—

The CHAIR: You need to speak to why you want it struck out; let members know why you want it struck out.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The reason I want it struck out is that I want to retain the current focus of the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act on the proceeds and instruments of crime. What the bill proposes to do is to replace those words with the words 'criminal assets.' What that is doing is a harbinger of what the rest of the bill does, which takes away the focus from proceeds and instruments of crime and opens up this brave new world—for want of a better description—of confiscating legally acquired assets. As I said in my earlier remarks, it may be a simple amendment but it is clearly a test of this council's interest in the government's proposal.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I presume that the amendments that were tabled today are identical to those tabled in the last session. The Hon. Stephen Wade has indicated that they are, so I accept him at his word. This first amendment is very minor, but we are prepared to use this as a test for the support for the bill. I do not need to go through the arguments; I have already outlined them in the second reading summary in terms of our view about this and our disappointment in the lack of support and courage of members of this council.

The committee divided on the clause:

AYES (8)
Brokenshire, R.L. Darley, J.A. Finnigan, B.V.
Gago, G.E. (teller) Gazzola, J.M. Hood, D.G.E.
Hunter, I.K. Kandelaars, G.A.
NOES (9)
Bressington, A. Dawkins, J.S.L. Lee, J.S.
Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I. Parnell, M.
Stephens, T.J. Vincent, K.L. Wade, S.G. (teller)
PAIRS (4)
Wortley, R.P. Ridgway, D.W.
Zollo, C. Franks, T.A.

Majority of one for the noes.

Clause thus deleted.

Clause 5.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Page 3—Lines 15 to 17 [clause 5(1)]—Delete subclause (1)

Lines 19 to 28 [clause 5(3), (4) and (5)]—Delete subclauses (3), (4) and (5)

Page 4—Lines 1 to 10 [clause 5(7)]—Delete subclause (7)

I understand that these amendments are consequential.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 6 passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I oppose the clause. I understand this is consequential.

Clause deleted.

Clause 8.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I oppose the clause. I believe this is consequential.

Clause deleted.

Clause 9.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I oppose the clause. I believe this is consequential.

Clause deleted.

Clause 10.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Page 6, lines 1 to 25 [clause 10(1)]—Delete subclause (1)

I understand it is consequential.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 11 passed.

Clause 12.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Page 6, lines 38 to 41 and page 7, lines 1 to 7 [clause 12(1)]—Delete subclause (1)

I understand it is consequential.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 13 passed.

Clause 14.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I oppose the clause. It is consequential.

Clause deleted.

Clauses 15 to 17 deleted.

Clause 18.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Page 9, line 5 [clause 18, inserted section 62A]—Delete 'subject to section 59A but despite' and substitute:

Despite

I understand that is consequential.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 19 and 20 passed.

Clause 21.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Page 10, lines 6 to 11 [clause 21(3), inserted subparagraph (ia)]—Delete inserted subparagraph (ia)

I understand it is consequential.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 22

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Page 10, lines 17 to 38 and page 11, lines 1 to 6 [clause 22, inserted section 76A]—Delete inserted section  76A

Page 11, line 9 [clause 22, inserted section 76B]—Delete 'but subject to section 76A'

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 23 to 32 passed.

Clauses 33 to 35 deleted.

Clause 36.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I oppose this clause. I will be brief but, just for the sake of clarity, I suggest that this is not consequential because this is the clause where the government proposes to divert money away from victims of crime to backfill its budget black hole. This is establishing the proposed justice resources fund, money that would previously have gone to the Victims of Crime Fund. Under this proposal it will go to the justice resources fund. I urge honourable members to support this amendment so that victims of crime will not miss out on what they are entitled to.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government supports this clause.

Clause deleted.

Clause 37 passed.

Clause 38.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Page 16, lines 9 to 24 [clause 38, inserted section 224A]—Delete inserted section 224A

I believe it is consequential.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (17:27): 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