Mike Elliott, Australian Democrats in the SA Parliament

Extract from Hansard

Legislative Council
7 July 1999

Mike Elliott
Leader Australian Democrats
Member of the Legislative Council

Parliament Index
1999 Budget Session Index
Browse by Subject
About the SA Parliament
Hansard on line

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I rise to speak briefly in support of this legislation. In simple terms, the Act aims to ensure that seizure of property and forfeiture can be achieved. As I understand it, there has been an interpretation of the law such that when people involved in amphetamines factories have been prosecuted the equipment has been taken from them, but there is now some risk that the glassware, etc. would have to be returned to them later on. I suppose that creates a couple of issues: first, why would you want to return what was something being used for a criminal purpose so that they can use it again for the same purpose? Also, there are safety issues involving the storage of materials. On the face of it, that seems very reasonable.

At the end of the day, we will need to concede that it will not make one iota of difference in terms of the actual quantum of amphetamines manufactured. The US experience these days is that the manufacturers of amphetamines can actually buy off the shelf a full kit to make amphetamines. When I say `off the shelf' I do not mean from the average supermarket but from whatever the criminal supermarket is, in other words, they can go to it and get off the shelf the equipment which has all the glassware and all the chemicals. They go to a motel room, do a `cook' and just leave. They leave behind the glassware with the residue chemicals and sell their amphetamines. They get another kit next time they want to do a `cook' and do it in another motel room elsewhere.

We would realise that passing this legislation will not make one iota of difference to the availability of amphetamines. It is also worth noting that the heroin syndicates operating in Asia have now moved into the amphetamine market and are using exactly the same networks to push amphetamines into the Australian market as they have been using for heroin. As I said, this is all about making sure that those people who are committing crimes are not in a position to profit from it, and to make it somewhat more difficult—or perhaps not quite so easy—for them to commit another crime farther along the track, as well as the occupational health and safety issues for those people involved in storage, if that had to happen.

I indicate support for the legislation but would ask the Minister at the closure of the second reading to give further explanation in relation to amendments to this Bill that have been tabled. From my reading of it, the second reading explanation did not anticipate further amendments that have been tabled by the Minister for Transport and Urban Planning in relation to section 13 of the Act. Whilst I have indicated the Democrats' preparedness to support the Bill as initially tabled, at this stage I wish to keep my powder dry in relation to these amendments that have been filed, because there has been no argument about them at this stage. Frankly, the principal parts of the amendments are almost as long as the Bill before us. There are significant amendments to the schedule of the Act which, again, the second reading explanation has not looked at much, although it appears on the face of it largely to be improvements of language, adding `or she' to `he'.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Absolutely. I ask the Minister to give some detailed explanation about the amendments, at the end of the second reading stage. I do not want to have to handle the amendments on the run without a detailed explanation beforehand, because on the face of it they look to be significant further amendments. While we are talking about controlled substances and our attempts to control, I note that the Government in recent times has changed the regulations in relation to cannabis laws and the number of plants that may be grown by an individual before facing an expiation notice. Previously, 10 or fewer plants would have led to expiation, and the Government has changed that to three. I imagine that that would also lead to the seizure of equipment, etc., which is relevant to this Bill.

I received correspondence from Trinity College at Gawler dated 3 May, signed by both the Headmaster of the college and the Chair of the college council. In that letter they referred to the three plant rule and said:

The proposal to limit plant growth to three plants may increase the criminality of the trade. It will not stop it or alter it at all. It may, in fact, increase the price a little, making it even more profitable for the criminal element to prey upon young people in our community.

I think that the Government will actually rue the day when it reduced the number of plants from 10 to three. I know that the stated reason for going from 10 plants to three was that this was creating a loophole for organised crime. Organised crime does not need loopholes: organised crime will perhaps change the way it sources its plants. But what we will do is ensure that we will see that more of the cannabis going into the market will be coming from organised crime than it is currently. Whilst some people growing between three and 10 plants are part of organised syndicates, most of them are not. Most of them are small—

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Yes. Most of the small-time dealers who are growing between three and 10 are really growing and supplying a circle of friends. The important thing is that they are supplying them with one drug only, and that is cannabis. However, the organised suppliers of cannabis, those who will stay in the market, sell not just cannabis. They also supply amphetamines, LSD, heroin, and so on. The Government is now guaranteeing that a greater percentage of the supply of cannabis will be coming from organised crime, as distinct from disorganised crime and, at the same time, guaranteeing that their profits will go up, guaranteeing that people selling cannabis will be selling other drugs as well.

While the Government may have done it for the best of intentions on the advice of the police, because the police could be see that perhaps it was being used as a loophole, one always has to ask, `What will be the practical impact of that?' I note that my first reaction when I heard of the change in rules was that I thought it was likely to be negative. It is interesting that a private school wrote a very detailed submission to me, and this school has a very strong drugs policy and, I must say, a very sophisticated drug policy. It is more sophisticated than I have seen in any other school in our State. Its goal is to try to ensure that cannabis is not being used by its students. In fact, it claims that it is having a great deal of success.

However, its whole policy is based within practical realities. It realises that, despite its attitude towards cannabis and students' use of it, the change from 10 to three plants has increased the criminality of the trade and will have a negative impact on the young people of our State. I can guarantee that the Government's actions here have actually helped the crooks, even though the stated purpose was the exact opposite. With those words, I indicate again the Democrats support for the second reading and for the Bill as tabled. We are waiting for the Minister's detailed explanation on amendments, hopefully at the end of the second reading stage rather than during the Committee stage, so that we can give due consideration to them.