Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offenders) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 July 2014.)

The Hon. S.G. WADE (15:46): I rise to speak on the Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offenders) Amendment Bill 2014. The Liberal Party has consistently promoted and supported legislation to confiscate assets where they are the proceeds of crime or the instruments of crime, even if they were lawfully acquired or where they represent unexplained wealth. In fact, the Liberal Party led the moves in this parliament to move against unexplained wealth.

However, this bill seeks to take the laws a step further, and that is to seize assets unrelated to a particular crime, disconnect them from any other penalty that an offender may receive, even where a person can prove that the assets have been legally acquired. In April, in the Emmerson case, a similar Northern Territory bill which had been struck down by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory on constitutional grounds, was upheld by the High Court. In that decision, the High Court removed the constitutional doubts that had been visiting laws of this type. What we now know is that this type of law is constitutional and we are now looking afresh to see whether, in fact, it is good law and whether it could be made better.

The Liberal Party supported the passage of the bill through the House of Assembly. The shadow attorney-general indicated that we would be giving the bill further consideration but we are yet to be convinced that the bill even meets the government's stated goals. In the Labor Party's 2010 serious crime election policy, which was quoted by the minister in her second reading contribution, it states:

This proposal will amend the Criminal Assets Confiscation (Controlled Substances) Act to target persistent or high-level drug offenders to provide for the total confiscation of the property of a declared drug trafficker. This deterrent is an effective way of disrupting and hindering the activities of serious organised crime gangs by removing or reducing profits.

At the 2010 election the Labor Party did not win a majority of the two-party preferred vote but formed government in spite of that fact. In the last parliament the Weatherill Labor government introduced bills to implement the 2010 policy. The bills, however, went further than the policy in that first, they allowed for the confiscation following a first offence and, secondly, they proposed to divert confiscated funds away from the victims of crime fund. None of those bills received the support of this parliament, particularly the Legislative Council.

The 2014 Labor Party policy went further again in that the policy said that the Labor Party would continue to pursue criminal asset confiscation changes and 'in addition we will give the court the power to prevent the offender from owning property for up to five years'. There are two distinctive elements of this extension of the policy. First, it is proposed to prevent offenders from owning property. Not only will an offender have assets confiscated, some of which may have been lawfully acquired and may have nothing to do with lawful activity, but the bill proposes that an offender would not be able to legally acquire any assets for up to five years.

The second noteworthy element is the commitment of the Labor Party to involve the courts. At the moment the confiscation scheme is managed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, it is subject to limited judicial oversight and, unlike the prosecution's function, the director's work in criminal assets confiscation is not subject to prosecutorial guidelines. If the DPP's role is to be expanded it would make sense, to me at least, that we have some element of judicial review and some element of guidance from DPP guidelines. Since the Emmerson case we can be more comfortable in involving the courts in this sort of process.

At the 2014 election the Labor Party did not win a majority of the two-party preferred vote, but formed government in spite of that fact, so for two elections in a row this policy has not been part of the policy set endorsed by the electorate of South Australia. The Attorney-General was asked in the other place why this bill only reflects the 2010 policy and not the 2014 policy. The Attorney-General told the House of Assembly that the reason this bill does not include the 2014 policy is because the parliament has already seen an earlier form of this bill and that putting new matters in could delay. What utter rubbish! If the government claims a mandate, at least it should seek to enact the most recent mandate—the policy from the most recent election.

The Liberal Party continues to have concerns about the fairness of the bill. The bill seeks to allow the confiscation of assets of certain drug offences to the brink of bankruptcy, even if a person could prove that the assets were lawfully acquired and that they were unrelated to crime. The bill is fundamentally different from current confiscation laws because it entitles the state to confiscate assets even if the citizen can demonstrate that they were lawfully acquired. Accordingly, the confiscation is more in the nature of a fine and could significantly exceed the penalty for the particular offence.

If the government contemplates penalties for an offence which are the subject of this type of approach, then the Liberal Party poses the question: why does the government not increase the penalties? I note that in this context a number of offences already have very significant penalties, as I understand it, of up to $500,000 fines and life imprisonment. Our law generally does not provide income related fines, that is they are fixed amounts. Obviously the financial circumstances of the defendant can be taken into account and within a statutory maximum, but they are not initially set on the basis of a certain disclosed or taxable income of the offender.

This bill represents a fundamental change in the fixing of fines. It is fundamental, but it is not novel. A letter from the Bar Association dated 27 June quotes the Emmerson case, that I previously referred to, and the historical precedents for confiscation laws. I quote the Bar Association note:

In Attorney-General (NT) v Emmerson, the High Court identified the historical origins of contemporary forfeiture legislation similar to the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act 2005 in the following terms: Forfeiture or confiscation of property, in connection with the commission of serious crime, has a long history in English law. Until its abolition by statute in 1870, a felon incurred general forfeiture of property, a sanction stretching back to medieval times.

Felony forfeiture provided Crown revenue and constituted the subject matter, at certain times, of Crown patronage. In distinguishing between a felon's forfeiture of land (strictly, escheat of land), a consequence of attainder following a judgment of death or outlawry, and the forfeiture of goods and chattels, a consequence of conviction and sentence, Blackstone noted the severe deterrent effect of forfeiture as a punishment for serious crime because it affected posterity as well as the individual offender.

The Bar Association goes on to say:

The primary objective of the Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offenders) Amendment Bill 2014…appears to be to retreat to the 19^th century, by implementing a scheme of forfeiture of property that will operate automatically and indiscriminately against one identified sub class of criminal offender—'prescribed drug offenders'.

The Law Society’s concerns in relation to this bill have been well documented by the society and oft referred to in this parliament. I will just briefly remind the council of some of those concerns. The Law Society has said that:

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, as citizens should not be deprived of his or her lawfully acquired assets because he commits an offence.

The society feels that the bill is discriminatory against citizens who are legally industrious and acquire wealth. They express concern at a lack of nexus between the offence and the assets seized. The society also says that the scheme represents an additional punishment over and above that for the actual offending. The Law Society mentions its concern about the impact on innocent parties. They raise the question that the citizen may have assets seized in spite of the fact that they may have dependants who rely on them. As Justice Gageler in the Emmerson case said:

Difficult issues might arise as to the effect of forfeiture on interests of other persons. Those issues can be put to one side.

He meant in the context of the case:

For present purposes, it is sufficient to focus on the most straightforward operation of the provisions: to forfeit property wholly owned by the person who is declared to be a drug [offender].

The Liberal Party is keen for this parliament to consider the impact of seizing of criminal assets on people other than the offender, and we are also concerned to make sure that our laws do not operate in a dragnet fashion to capture people who are not the targets of the laws.

The Attorney-General’s approach on this aspect of the bill is quite ironic. While arguing the laws will make the world of difference, he also asserts that it will apply to a very small number of offenders. The Attorney-General can hardly be confident in either case. The government has not provided any information, modelling or precedent to suggest that such provisions will make an impact on drug trade in South Australia, yet the government has not developed any information—and we know, because we repeatedly request it—to explain what impact this will have on offending levels. Policy seems to be written more for a press release rather than to reduce crime and to make our community safer.

The other irony is that, while making unsubstantiated claims about the impact of the laws, they are also playing down how many incidences it will apply to. The Attorney-General likes to assert it will only apply to repeat offenders, but the bill reads otherwise. A first offender could be subject to the bankruptcy provisions in this confiscation down to the bankruptcy level provided in this bill if they undertake a single commercial drug offence. In that context, I think the advice of the Bar Association is extremely useful. As practitioners in the field, their submission, I think, gives us a better understanding of the real impact of the definitions that this bill contains.

In that regard, I would appreciate if the minister at the second reading summing up stage could give us the government's response to the Bar Association's assertions in terms of the impact of the definitions. Both the Bar Association and the Law Society assert that the definitions and thresholds included in this legislation, even for the first offence provisions, would attract relatively low-level offending. The relevant excerpt from the Bar Association submission reads as follows:

There are two circumstances in which a person may become a prescribed drug offender: one, upon conviction for a 'commercial drug offence'; two, upon conviction for a third 'prescribed drug offence' within a 10 year period.

The first category of 'prescribed drug offenders' are those convicted of a 'commercial drug offence'—offences against the Controlled Substances Act 1984...involving trafficking, manufacturing, cultivating or selling commercial, or large commercial, quantities of drugs or precursors.

The bill sets a very low bar for a person to commit a single 'commercial drug offence' and become a 'prescribed drug offender', resulting in the automatic forfeiture of their property.

To take cannabis offending as an example, a person convicted of trafficking 1 kg or more of pure cannabis will commit a 'commercial drug offence' and become a 'prescribed drug offender'. Yet 1 kg of dried cannabis can be obtained from harvesting only a few cannabis plants (and since cannabis loses about 75% of its weight after drying, if a grower was caught with cannabis after they had just harvested it they are likely to possess more than 1 kg of cannabis from a single plant).

The table set out in the second reading speech, which purports to identify the level of offending to which the amendments will apply, does not provide a comprehensive analysis. The table refers only to 'mixed' weights of controlled drugs and drugs of dependence, and at least so far as cannabis offences are concerned, it is usual for the DPP and police to prosecute offences based on the lesser 'pure weight' of cannabis, as it is a substance infrequently mixed with others.

Additionally, the quantities of 'cannabis plants' identified in the table in the second reading speech as triggering the 'commercial' and 'large commercial quantity' offences are incorrect. The Controlled Substances (Controlled Drugs, Precursors and Plants) Regulations 2000...prescribe 20 cannabis plants as a 'commercial quantity' and 100 cannabis plants as a 'large commercial quantity'.

Accordingly, the amendments have the capacity to operate in the context of offences involving much smaller quantities of cannabis than the second reading speech might suggest. This is incongruent with the Bill's stated objective of targeting major, high level drug dealers or 'Mr Bigs'. Many of the offenders who will come within the first category of 'prescribed drug offenders' will instead be low level offenders.

We as a party have continually criticised this government for low penalties for drug and other offences. In that regard, we had a specific policy which we took to the last election which tried to ameliorate the tendency for some people to use the cannabis diversion program to avoid dealing with their drug offending behaviour.

We would be very happy to talk in this place about increasing the enforcement of drug offences, but what the Bar Association is saying to the Liberal Party and to all members of this place is do not accept what the government says. The government says that this is targeting Mr Bigs, that it will not deal with low-level offenders. The information that the Bar Association provides is that the government is wrong. The government's definition of prescribed drug offenders will pick up people who would not be seen as Mr Bigs. That section was specifically focusing on proposed section 6A.

In another section, the Bar Association addresses the issue of the focus of the legislation in more general terms, and I quote:

The major premise of the Bill is that 'prescribed drug offenders' will be members of outlaw motorcycle gangs who are 'notoriously involved in drug [offending]'. There could be little doubt that some 'prescribed drug offenders' will have connections with such organisations. As a universal proposition, however, the assumption on which the Bill is premised is [false]. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that the Bill will achieve one of its stated objectives of targeting 'high level and major drug traffickers' because the pre-requisites to characterisation as a 'prescribed drug offender' are so undemanding—

let me stress 'undemanding'—

that, having regard to the current formulation and operation of the Controlled Substances Act...in practice, the great majority of drug offenders will be subjected to the proposed amendments.

In that regard I was interested to hear the Attorney-General's estimates, although it would probably be too kind to call them estimates because he cannot tell us the number of offenders who would be affected; I think it would be best to call them guesstimates. I think the guesstimates were that the legislation would bring in between $8 million and $10 million a year.

I do not know how you can work that out without knowing how many people will be affected; nonetheless, that was four times the amount a barrister working in this field suggested to me he thought would be brought in by this legislation, so it might reflect this government's optimistic estimates on budget forecasts. Nevertheless, we are talking about significant amounts of money, and I would suggest that perhaps the Attorney-General's higher estimate reflects a growing realisation amongst government that contrary to what we have been repeatedly told, that this legislation attacks the high level and major drug traffickers, it will actually mean that relatively minor offenders will be subject to automatic confiscation. Elsewhere in the submission the Bar Association says:

The draconian nature of the scheme proposed by the bill could be appropriately moderated by providing the court with a broader discretion to ameliorate the effects of the automatic forfeiture provisions where the circumstances of a particular case justify doing so. However, the scheme, as presently contemplated, will see the adjudicative process by the courts become little more than a 'rubber stamp' of applications made by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Courts will have no power to confine the harsh and extensive impact of the bill's amendments, no matter how meritorious the case under consideration.

I think the Bar Association's submission also raises the question: why pick on drugs? The Bar Association's submission highlights that the historical compensation laws in the Victorian era—and this legislation, if you like, returns to that tradition—were not focused on just drugs. It was based on a broad definition of felony.

Given that our current confiscation laws are not limited to a narrow range of offences and considering that the Victorian era confiscation practices (which this bill seeks to go back to) were not focused on a narrow range of offenders, that neither of them were focused on a narrow range of offenders, the government needs to explain why this legislation is focused merely on drugs. Why is this legislation not being applied to serious personal assaults or murders or child sex offenders? Once you remove the nexus between the offence and the confiscation it can apply to any offence, and one would ask: why should it not apply to other offences? There is any number of serious offences which attract up to life imprisonment for which the government is not proposing that this legislation should apply.

One clear outcome of Labor's proposed confiscation laws is that victims will lose. Labor's bill before us would stop the proceeds of the assets confiscated by this bill going to the victims of crime fund and redirects them to a justice resources fund to fund general government services. Now the government wants to persist with the bill to take away money directed to victims rather than giving priority to lifting the maximum threshold on the payments to victims of crime, as promised during the election.

The Attorney-General claims, 'We are taking nothing out of victims of crime and, by the way, at last count, I think there were some hundreds of millions of dollars sitting there, waiting for the victims of crime to receive the benefit of it.' The Attorney-General’s statements are fundamentally misleading. These laws will take money from the Victims of Crime Fund. Today if a person who would be a prescribed a drug offender under the terms of the bill were convicted of an offence and liable for asset confiscation, the current act would only mean that they are liable to have instruments and proceeds of crime confiscated and the money would be transferred to the Victims of Crime Fund.

However, if this bill is passed not only will the offenders assets down to the bankruptcy level be liable to be transferred to the Justice Resources Fund but also the proceeds and instruments of crime that would otherwise have gone to the Victims of Crime Fund will now be diverted to the Justice Resources Fund.

It is fundamentally misleading for the Attorney-General to say that we are taking nothing out of victims of crime, let alone the fact that the Victims of Crime Fund does not have hundreds of millions of dollars sitting there for victims. I think it is closer to $100 million. In any event, the victims of crime are still waiting for this government to honour an election commitment to increase the victims of crime payments. With those comments, I look forward to further consideration of this bill by this council in both the committee stage and further second reading contributions.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (16:11): I rise to speak in support of the Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offenders) Amendment Bill. This is a bill to help us attack repeat drug trafficking offenders. More broadly speaking, this is a bill that attacks bikie gangs and organised criminals. This bill is not a new concept. Similar laws and powers have been passed in Western Australia, New South Wales, the Northern Territory and Queensland.

I might point out that schemes in Western Australia and the Northern Territory require that all declared drug traffickers’ assets are subject to forfeiture. This means that any assets obtained through legitimate means are also confiscated.

My understanding is that a similar proposal brought to this parliament, before my time here, was met with concern by various members, particularly those opposite. My understanding is that within this current bill protections have been placed so that a prescribed offender’s possession will be forfeited to a point similar to a level that a bankrupt would be able to hold.

I must say that I personally do not lie awake at night thinking of criminals, particularly drug traffickers, and how I can protect their property, legitimate or otherwise. I am confident that the average South Australian would not care either. What an average South Australian would be expecting of us members is that we give the police the best possible powers to find these scum who are selling toxic material to young people so they can be locked up.

Given that the private property of drug traffickers was of such concern to the opposition, they would be pleased to know that the so-called bankruptcy provision, as I have termed it, sees this bill as distinct to the previous bill as well as legislation in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. To close off on this point, average South Australians need not worry that their right to own property or their right to justice is being perverted as long as they do not deal in serious and commercial drug dealing, nor repeatedly deal in drugs.

I dare say that this is an important point that has been sometimes lost in this debate, and I dare say often lost on the very intellectuals who claim to hold all knowledge in these matters. I note that in 2003, before my time here, when the bill was last before the council, there was a pending case before the High Court of Australia, which pitted the Northern Territory government against opponents of its legislation. Those opposite argued that they wanted to wait for ambiguity over that legislation's constitutionality to be resolved before they voted, given the similarities to what is being proposed here.

In April 2014, by a majority of 6:1, the High Court held that the act was valid. It was found that the Northern Territory government did not overexert their powers, as has been claimed by opponents to this government's bill, particularly with regard to the seizure of non-crime related property. Within the court's commentary it is explained very clearly the acceptance by legislatures across Australia of the utility of the restraint and forfeiture of property, not only as a strong and drastic sanction vindicating a law and encouraging its observance but also as a means of depriving criminals of profits and preventing the accumulation of significant assets.

This standard has a long history in English law, something I thought the so-called conservatives opposite would appreciate. Another important point provided by the High Court, and I quote directly from its commentary:

Modern civil forfeiture laws for confiscating the proceeds of, or profits from, crime go beyond the condemnation of goods used in, or derived from, crime. Many are designed expressly to render a person's pursuit of certain crimes unprofitable in an economic sense.

In short, what I think the High Court was getting at is that confiscating the legitimate property of a serial drug dealer acts as an extra deterrent to cease those activities which may not have otherwise existed. Perhaps it could be argued that the power to inhibit a criminal's freedom to own property is no different from inhibiting a criminal's freedom of movement, and I believe governments are in the business of legislating for minimum or maximum gaol sentences for various offences.

Perhaps most pertinently, the High Court makes the very logical point that the rationale for employing forfeiture as a punishment may go beyond the common aims of deterrent and retribution and involve an element of incapacitation, so as to ensure that an offence will not be repeated by the same means.

I ask whether members opposite have given any consideration to the very real possibility that legitimately acquired assets could be used by repeat offenders to continue to reoffend. To that end, I believe one of the intents of this bill is to prevent crime by diminishing the capacity of offenders to finance future drug-related activities. Even the most strident opponents of this bill have conceded that, in light of the High Court's decision, this bill presented before this council is definitely constitutional.

What concerns me is that it seems to me that those opposite have not just been opposed to this bill because of their concerns over its constitutionality and, therefore, its application, they have actually raised arguments opposing the bill on a more philosophical level, raising what I would deem to be the very obscure concern that this bill impinges on the freedom of serial drug offenders. I hope their attitudes have changed on this. I look forward to seeing bipartisan support for this bill because, if those opposite do not support the bill, they will truly expose themselves as being soft on crime.

Liberal Party members have spent the last four years whingeing that they should be in government and that they were robbed and, since I was elected, they have done the same—they still whinge about it and that they were robbed. The Liberal Party needs to be very careful not to alienate many average South Australians who, may I say, make a difference in marginal seats, because if the Liberal Party continues to be soft on crime they may find themselves in opposition again after the 2018 election.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (16:21): I rise to support the government's bill and make some short remarks. I am proud to stand here and say that I belong to a government that is tough on crime. As a government we have been committed time and again to deal strong penalties to those choosing to engage in criminal activity and, in particular, to peddle drugs in our community, and to at least go after these people and bankrupt them for what they do in our community, that is, bankrupt people in our community.

I ask every member of this place: what do you think is the motivation of serious drug dealers? Do they do it for fun? Of course not. There is one reason and one reason only. Money. This bill seeks to address the motivation and to hit serious drug dealers where it hurts. This bill attacks serious drug dealers of two particular kinds, firstly, the extremely serious offender, a major offender who is convicted of a commercial drug offence being certain extremely serious offences in the Controlled Substance Act 1984.

The extremely serious offences we are talking about here are trafficking, manufacture for sale, selling or possession with the intent to sell a large commercial quantity of a controlled substance or controlled plants and the cultivation of large commercial quantities or commercial quantities of controlled plants. It is worth looking at the table that was presented in the second reading speech.

South Australia's commercial amounts for amphetamines, half a kilogram; cannabis 2.5 kilograms; cannabis resin, two kilograms; heroin, 200 grams; cannabis plants—and I noted what the Hon. Stephen Wade said and we can get this clarified at the committee stage—100 plants. Large commercial amounts: one kilogram of amphetamines (not an insubstantial amount); cannabis, 12.5 kilograms; cannabis resin, 10 kilograms; heroin, one kilogram; and cannabis plants, 500 plants. We are not talking about minor amounts here.

When we look at the second issue, repeat offenders who are convicted three times—that is not once, not twice, but three times or more—of a nominated offence within a 10-year period, they have to be found guilty of a serious drug offence that is indictable. Under the Controlled Substances Act 1984 that is determined by what is considered commercial offences or offences involving children or school zones.

It is worth looking at some of these and, in particular, I note division 3, offences involving children and school zones: the sale and supply or administration of controlled drugs to a child; the sale and supply or administration of controlled drugs in a school zone; the sale of equipment to a child for use in connection with the consumption of a controlled drug; the sale of instructions to a child and procuring a child to commit a drug offence. These are very serious matters. Again, I point out that in terms of the repeat offenders it is not about once, it is not about twice, it is about three times in 10 years. People have had fair warning if they are caught by the provisions of this bill on that basis.

It is clear that we are not talking about small-time players. The bill focuses on the Mr Bigs of the drug trade. I do not accept the notion that this bill is unduly onerous on the families of drug traffickers. First, I admit that it does not leave means for a life of luxury but there are exemptions in respect of forfeiture of assets. The bill provides for the forfeiture of assets other than what a bankrupt would be allowed to keep. I understand that this means that a person subject to forfeiture orders under this bill would be able to keep basic household furniture and a car to a certain value, etc. I do not see those opposite complaining about how we treat bankrupts. I must say that this is about bankrupting those people who bankrupt our young kids and other people in the community by peddling in the drug trade. Let's be serious about this.

This bill removes the trappings of luxury from serious and repeat drug offenders but leaves them with the basic necessities. I have heard the argument that the families of these offenders who are used to the trappings of luxury will be punished along with the offender. However, this is no different to how we treat a bankrupt. I have not, as I said, seen those opposite complain about that.

Why should the law look after a serious or repeat drug offender? Why should we treat them any better than we treat a bankrupt? The families of a bankrupt are left with basic household goods and are asked to make do, so why should that not apply to the families of a serious and repeat drug offender? And I say again a repeat drug offender is somebody who traffics not once, not twice but three times in an indictable offence. It is not that they have not had warning. It is not that they did not know what they were doing.

I also want to make a short point about the proceeds of the forfeiture of assets. The bill provides that the proceeds raised by the application of this initiative will be devoted to the Justice Reform Fund. This fund will be devoted to the provision of money for court infrastructure, equipment and services, the provision of money for justice programs and the facilities for dealing with drug and alcohol-related crimes and other justice reform initiatives.

This is a worthwhile application of these funds. Investment in the justice sector will provide any number of benefits, not the least enabling victims of crime to receive access to their day in court in a shorter time frame. What the bill aims to do is to cut off the drug trade at the very core and reinvest the proceeds recovered to support those seeking justice.

People who should be caught by the provisions of this bill peddle drugs that cause misery and even death in our community. They are moral bankrupts, so why should we as a society not treat them as bankrupt? This is about taking serious action against those who would bankrupt our community. It is a worthy cause and I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (16:30): This government has stood firm against crime since it was first elected in 2002, and we make no apologies. We are tough on crime.

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

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: We are tough on crime. Mr President, I might need your protection from the Hon. John Dawkins. He seems to be quite agitated on his birthday. Now in his seventh decade of life, he is very enthusiastic. The Criminal Assets Confiscation (Prescribed Drug Offender Assets) Amendment Bill is not new to this place. Labor's 2010 serious crime election policy contemplated an early form of the bill that is before us today. That policy stated:

This proposal will amend the Criminal Assets Confiscation Act…to target persistent or high level drug offenders to provide for total confiscation of the property of a 'Declared Drug Trafficker'.

The bill, in a substantially similar form, was introduced into parliament on 18 May 2011, as has been noted by other speakers. It was passed by the House of Assembly on 28 July 2011, but when it reached this place the opposition effectively defeated all the operative parts of the policy by amendments to the bill. Unlike us, they were not tough on crime.

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

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Sit down if you want to interject. You have been here long enough, the Hon. John Dawkins. Sit down if you want to keep interjecting. This bill was reintroduced on 14 February 2012. The same thing happened in the Legislative Council again. On 18 October 2013, the opposition in the Legislative Council moved that the second reading be deferred for six months. The bill was effectively killed.

Again, consistent with this government's strong stance against crime, being very tough on crime, we are seeking to pass this bill through the Legislative Council. We are consistent as a government in our view that there is no place for crime in our great state. We make no apologies for this. We are proud to be here introducing and supporting this legislation again. This bill will withstand any constitutional changes as speakers from all sides have outlined. It will cut off the drug trade by attacking its reasons for being, that is the money, it will provide a strong message to the community that drug offences and their hideous consequences in our society will not be tolerated, and it will bankrupt those very individuals who bankrupt our communities.

The Hon. Stephen Wade in his speech—although it possibly could be construed as not necessarily to do with this particular subject—continues to helpfully talk about the results of the last election, and I encourage him to do so. People really want to hear about the last election result and, if that is what the Hon. Stephen Wade thinks voters are interested in, I firmly encourage him to keep talking about the last election. It is a genius strategy from the Hon. Stephen Wade. Captain Genius, keep talking about the last election. Ignore the fact that government is formed by those who have the support of the majority members of the House of Assembly. I will talk about it at much greater length at another time but, through entirely their own fault, the Liberal Party does not enjoy the support of the majority of members of the House of Assembly. I will talk at another time about former leaders.

We have a former leader who is now a part of the cabinet supporting this government. We have a former leader who left in a by-election in the seat of Frome that was won by an Independent. We have another member of the Liberal Party who holds a seat that would otherwise be won by the Liberal Party. If the Liberal Party want to look at why they lost the last election—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: What has this got to do with the bill?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Well, I am just responding to the Hon. Stephen Wade’s speech on this bill; he introduced it on this very bill. If the opposition want to look at why they lost the last election, do not complain about the Labor Party and their 2PP. I have not heard a thing from them about the fact that at the federal election, the federal Liberal Party got 53 per cent of the vote yet won 60 per cent of the seats. I do not hear them talking about that, but if they think it is such a great idea and they think that is what voters are really interested in, I encourage them to do so. I encourage them to do so because they will continue to be in opposition for a very long time.

This bill ought to be supported. A very exciting thing, I think, has happened since the last time the opposition stymied this bill that is tough on crime in this house: the Liberal Party has turned a new leaf. The Leader of the Opposition has sought to reshuffle his front bench, and in doing so we have a new shadow attorney-general, with some experience in the practice of law. I congratulate the new shadow attorney-general (the member for Bragg in the other place) who has looked at this bill and has passed it in the lower house. I think that is a great step forward and I look forward to the opposition supporting their new shadow attorney-general and passing it in this chamber also.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M.A. Lensink.