The Valley of Swine  (WA 2003)

Western Australia’s hydroponics retail industry had been targeted by legislation (The Cannabis Control Bill 2003), that would effectively see hydroponic retailers charged for selling growing equipment to clientele who went on to cultivate cannabis with this equipment. The intended legislation that was being pushed through parliament by the Labor party – WA’s ruling party - stated: “a person who sells or supplies, or offers to sell or supply, to another, any thing that the persons knows, or reasonably ought to know, will be used to cultivate a prohibited plant contrary to section 7(1)(a) or (2) by hydroponic means commits an indictable offence.” 

Where we were concerned, the issue – the loaded trap – were the words “reasonably ought to know.”

What should we “reasonably ought to know”?

These four words meant that any WA retailer, acting in good faith (or not) could be charged with an indictable offence under the ‘Misuse of Drugs Act’. Conviction was subject to a $20,000.00 fine and the loss of the right to sell hydroponics equipment for up to 2 years. In other words, the authorities would have the power to shut us down at any opportunity they deemed appropriate…. Guilty or not.

All it would take was for a cannabis cultivator to be arrested, equipment seized and for the cultivator to tell police which store he or she had purchased the equipment from. Police could then visit the store and to say to the owner and/or employee/s: “we don’t know what you should have reasonably known so we’ll leave it up to the courts to decide.” The ambiguity of the intended legislation created a legal and professional minefield for retailers who would, in effect, at least in the short term - prior to legal precedents being set - be guilty of a crime until proven innocent. Perhaps, more concerning was the unknown quantity of assets seizure under laws introduced by the same WA government. This of course would mean, not only could retailers’ potentially lose their right to trade and their ability to earn income but also any assets they had obtained through years of hard work.

Independent legal advice to the industry stated:

“ The wording of the section is in my view deliberately wide…. The test is, however, an objective one and the inclusion of the words “reasonably ought to know” will cast a wide net. Where a vendor sells articles believing them to be destined for an innocent use he might still commit an indictable offence if the items are subsequently put to an illegal purpose.

It would be open to the court to find as a question of fact that the defendant in a particular case held a firm belief that the goods were being sold for innocent purposes, but the belief was not reasonable in the circumstances. He would thereby be guilty of an offence despite having a completely innocent mind…. In my view….the objective nature of the test might snare persons who subjectively believed that they were selling to a bona fide purchaser…. The basis of liability as the proposed provision presently stands is dangerous, heavy handed and likely to result in unjust convictions.

Any conviction for an offence under the proposed section would expose the accused person to the loss of all his assets, irrespective of how they were obtained… In my view the section needs to be reviewed and amended to avoid consequences that would could (sic) be quite catastrophic for a sector of the community going about its business in good faith…” (Tom Percy QC. 16/5/2003)

Perhaps more damaging to labors cause was legal advice submitted to labor by the Criminal Lawyers Association of Western Australia:

“ Whilst the Association does not oppose the introduction of the new offence proposed by clause 28 of the Bill (being new section 7(a) of the misuse of drugs Act), we believe the clause is drafted too widely. The words “or reasonably ought to know” should be removed from the clause. Conduct should only be criminalised where a seller of hydroponics equipment has actual knowledge that the equipment will be used to cultivate a prohibited plant. Criminalising conduct where there is in fact no criminal intent is in our view wrong in principle.” (Hylton Quail, President. 8/5/2003)

Labor buried this forthwith.  The appraisal by the Criminal Lawyers Association was addressed to: The Honourable R C Kucera APM MLA, Minister for Health.” 

Paradoxically, ‘The Cannabis Control Bill 2003’ was legislation aimed at reducing the social impacts (criminal conviction, loss of job prospects) of a minor cannabis conviction. In this respect the bill was - depending on which side of the prohibition fence you sit - progressive legislation that’s core intent was to pseudo decriminalize the personal use and cultivation of cannabis. The intended legislation would take personal possession (30 grams or less) and cultivation (2 plants or less) away from being a criminal offence (total prohibition with criminal penalties) to something more like a traffic offence (prohibition with civil penalties) where users would receive an on the spot fine and avoid criminal conviction.

Research findings into “the social impacts of a cannabis conviction” were arguably the genesis for WA’s move towards earlier cannabis law reform.  The research was submitted to the then Liberal government’s ministerial council on drug strategy in May 1998.

The report, 73 pages, compared South Australia’s (SA’s) expiation notice policy (offence with civil penalties) to Western Australia’s total prohibition policy (offence with criminal penalties).

SA had decriminalised the possession of 100grams of cannabis and/or 10 plants in 1987 under the ‘SA CEN scheme’ (Cannabis Enforcement Notice scheme). The research conducted by Robert Ali and Paul Christie (Drug and Alcohol Services council, SA), Simon Lenton and David Hawkes (National Centre into the Research of Drug Abuse), Adam Sutton (Department of Criminology, University of Melbourne), Wayne Hall (National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre) and Steve Allsop (National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction) cited (amongst other things):

Based on the research, the then Liberal government initiated its’ own Act into law in October of 1998 whereby a trial was run in two WA policing districts with a cannabis cautioning system (The Mirrabooka Act). Under the liberal system cannabis users who had no prior convictions could be given an instant fine (no conviction) and diverted towards mandatory counseling. Cultivation was not included within the framework of the trial and the diversion and instant fine were a one off caution only. The Act was extended statewide in March of 2000. 

In 2001 the WA labor government came into power. … One of Labors 2001 election promises was a commitment to hold a community drug summit to determine WA’s future drug policy, an election winner given community outrage and widespread (albeit parochially sensationalist) media surrounding drug related crime, drug related fatalities, and widespread illicit drug use amongst the WA community.

Prior to this, at the ALP (Labor) state conference in 1999, labor delegates had unanimously voted to decriminalise the possession of up to 100 grams of cannabis and the cultivation of five plants as part of the ALP platform. Clearly, WA’s state Labor party was now exorcising that agenda.

Between the 13th – 17th of August 2001 a community drug summit was held where 100 chosen delegates discussed submissions by police, alcohol and drug bodies, politicians and community groups. During the opening of the summit the then health minister for Labor, Bob Kucera, a former high ranking police officer in the WA Police Service, submitted a written direction to the delegates stating: “…asks delegates to consider…. Changes to the states cannabis laws involving decriminalisation of…the cultivation of up to two plants, possession of up to 50g….” The delegates passed the motion. Labor had its mandate.

Shortly after the summit a drug law reform ministerial working party was appointed by the labor government. The working party consisted of John Prior (Criminal Lawyer), Simon Lenton (researcher), Dr. Moira Sim (researcher), Steve Allsop (Drug and Alcohol Office/DAO exec director), Jim Migro (WA Police Service), Ross Tomasini (WA Police Service), Andrew Marshal (Justice Department), Greg Swenson (DAO) and Dr. Robert Ali (Researcher).

The dynamic was complex – left to right - and debate inside the working party was later described by Simon Lenton in a publication on the media and the ‘Cannabis Control Bill’ drug law reform process as “robust”.

As mentioned, the genesis to these events was research that compared Western Australia’s zero tolerance experience to ‘South Australia’s’ more liberal approach to cannabis law enforcement. SA had decriminalized limited cannabis possession and cultivation in 1987 (SA Expiation Notice). Under the SA scheme a Cannabis Expiation Notice (CEN) was issued for cultivation of 10 or less plants and no more than 100 grams of cannabis. The number of cultivatable plants, under successive SA governments, shifted from 10 to 8, then two and then zero hydroponically cultivated plants by 2002.

And herein lay the problem.

At the exact same time that Western Australia’s labor government was trying to push the Cannabis Control Bill through WA parliament the South Australian government was bringing to an end aspects of their own liberal approach to cannabis law enforcement after the expiation notice had become a mockery of unpaid fines, numerous home invasions and alleged criminal growing syndicates who exploited generous plant numbers and used this facet of the CEN to co-opt others into grow ops, whereby multiple houses would each contain 10 cannabis plants, each being capable of producing large quantities of hydroponically grown cannabis. Put simply the model put forward as the ‘way’ – the genesis of the genesis - had collapsed. This of course meant the validity of the research (the core support material to the political argument) was greatly undermined.

Lenton’s (et al) research was selective in that it perhaps failed to identify with other aspects of the ill fated CEN scheme:

Between 1987 and 2002 SA had become Australia’s uncontested dope capital and due to its centralised location with boarders onto 4 other states, more street destined cannabis originated from SA than all of the other states combined. On a hot day in Adelaide, SA’s capital city, the smell of cannabis permeated the air… At one point, SA authorities estimated that one in three houses in Adelaide had a hydroponic cannabis crop growing behind closed doors. However, in reality, 1 in 2 may have been a more realistic figure.

In December 2001, a police road safety blitz along the Sturt Highway resulted in the seizure of $100,000.00 worth of cannabis and other drugs concealed in false fuel tanks and boot linings. In the same month 20 kilos of cannabis was seized by police on Sydney bound buses while another 200 kilos was intercepted aboard interstate bound commercial aircraft. 

South Australian regulators had devised the CEN scheme in 1987 on the basis of outdoor cannabis growing where, traditionally, half of the plants grown from seed would turn male and the average growing cycle was between 5 – 8 months. What they hadn’t anticipated was the growth in hydroponic technology and cloning (striking cuttings from female plants which, in turn, guarantees all female plants) that would explode shortly after the CEN was introduced. Dope crops could now be turned around in as little as ten weeks – each plant capable of producing large quantities of female head – with a new crop ready to be planted at the cessation of each and every growing cycle; estimates suggesting that a total of 20 kilo could be grown for personal use every year.

The working party had originally tabled a paper on the proposed legislation that recommended a given number of cannabis plants and a given quantity of cannabis could be subject to a CIN. Due  to the dynamic now playing out in South Australia, broadcast widely through WA (et al) media, an important aspect of the working party paper became the political pony of “removing the supply and distribution of cannabis away from large scale operators with links to organized crime”. It was under this heading that mention of regulating WA’s hydroponics industry was made. 

It was alleged by both WA labor and liberal politicians that SA’s hydroponics industry had become a nexus of organised crime with direct links to South Australia’s cannabis supply industry. In this process the WA industry was tarred with the same brush, a convenient scapegoat for the politically mistimed process of cannabis decriminalization in WA. 

In Jan of 2003, widespread media coverage followed the bust of one WA storeowner after police uncovered a large clandestine hydroponic operation at his South of the River storage facilities. Following this, another storeowner was taken down in spectacular public fashion after police discovered a houseful of cannabis being grown in Perth’s southern suburbs. The latter bust resulted in the arrest of one Steven Bewicks, a Perth hydro retailer, who would later go on to avoid prison time after being found guilty of the most serious type of commercial cultivation, with intent to sell or supply, charges. 

However; back to 2003:  

Within weeks of these arrests the West Australian Newspaper, Perth’s only daily, reported that a police operation targeting South of the River stores and their customers had successfully concluded with wide spread arrests and seizures for drug related offences.

In all, more than 50 hydroponic grow ops were discovered and over 30 arrests had been made in Operation CANNA (Police having kept their sense of humour linked the hydro operation to a hydroponic product that was distributed from Perth via The Highlife Company…THC – get it?). 

None of this could have been coincidental; what seemed clear was the PR machine of Police Media Liaison was in full swing. Furthermore, the growing wave of negative press concerning hydroponics, cannabis and retail stores was symptomatic of a concerted push by politicians to turn the tide on the impending ideological dogfight via throwing us into the ring.

This SA situation was supported by a paper that was tabled by the Hon. Simon O’Brien MLC, Shadow Minister (WA Liberal Party) for Drug Strategy.

In this paper (Decriminalisation of cannabis: The wrong approach. March 2002) it was alleged:

“ The use of hydroponics has flourished in South Australia since the decriminalisation of cannabis in 1987….. The benefits of hydroponics to producers include better concealment, year round yields, faster growing plants, and higher quality cannabis…. The increase in quality of cannabis means higher levels of Delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)…. Anecdotal evidence suggests that in the 1970’s, cannabis had an average THC content of around 0.4%, and that this has increased to around 6-8% in hydroponic plants….. The number of hydroponic stores in Adelaide grew from three in 1990, to 96 in 2001. 75% of these stores have links to organised crime.”

However, in the working party minutes (Wednesday 28th August 2002) it is noted: “ From discussions with Rod Williams in the South Australian Department of Premier and Cabinet it was believed that a relatively small number of hydroponic suppliers had been identified by SA Police as being involved in supplying equipment to organise(sic) crime groups.”

Working party minutes from the 7th August 2002 have under the heading “Regulation of hydroponic industry” …. Wayne outlined concerns about the difficulty of being able to develop a workable scheme to regulate suppliers of hydroponics equipment because of the large number of outlets which legitimately sold equipment such as lighting, pipes, soils, pumps, regulators etc which had a wide variety of uses, including hydroponic cultivation…… As a result of developments since the meeting it is recommended that the Government not include in the Bill the regulation of the hydroponics industry at this time due to the complexity of this issue. As the proposed scheme explicitly excludes hydroponically cultivated cannabis, the impact of this exclusion on the sale of hydroponic equipment for the purpose of cannabis cultivation should be monitored before a complex and difficult to administer scheme is introduced.”

“Wayne” was Wayne Salvage, Legal and Legislative Services Branch, Department of Health, Bob Kucera’s right hand man during his time as minister for health.

3 weeks later on Wednesday 28th August, 2002 key components of an internal memorandum handed down to the working party by Wayne Salvage “… noted that the West Australian government had previously announced that one of its concerns was to prevent organised crime groups being involved in becoming hydroponic equipment suppliers. It was agreed to support the option of the Commissioner of Police having the power to issue an order to restrict those equipment suppliers who are criminally involved in the hydroponic cultivation of cannabis….… Where a person carries on a business involving the sale or supply of equipment used in hydroponic cultivation and the Commissioner of Police has reason to believe that the person is selling or supplying such equipment for the cultivating commercial quantities of cannabis by hydroponic cultivation, then the commissioner might be given the power under the Cannabis Control Bill to issue an order in relation to the person.….. This order would require the person to provide the names and addresses of all persons who work at the business or who have a financial interest in the business (eg directors, shareholders in the case of a corporate body). Police could also be authorised to conduct criminal record checks of all such notified persons…. It was agreed that as police had some concerns about divulging their sources of information at an open court, the preferred model would be to enable the commissioner to seek an order from a Special Commissioner who had been appointed under the Criminal Investigation (Exceptional Powers) and Fortification Removal Act 2002.” A piece of legislation created for Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs and Organised Crime targets.

Clearly recommendations by the working party to ministerial had been ignored. In a three week period a directive from ministerial/cabinet to the working party had been drawn up and this greatly changed the context of the legislation where the hydroponics retail industry would be concerned. 

In effect, the directive meant, suspicion of criminal involvement alone could be used against a retailer. Should the retailer question why he or she was suspected of criminal involvement authorities simply needed to state that it was due to them having information as to their involvement in criminal activity….Where did the information come from? We are not obliged to divulge that! Perhaps the most heinous type of legislation in the criminal code and, more telling, hidden until now from industry members and the public behind a subterfuge of lies and political meat flogging.

Having myself been targeted by police in a surveillance operation between October 2002 and September 2003 I can only conclude that the likelihood of being able to respond to ‘alleged’ allegations of criminal involvement is impossible under the system of “Exceptional Powers”. In effect, an individual is guilty on the basis of hearsay alone and has very little in the way of rights.

Would the retailer need to be convicted of a crime first? In all probability not! The “Exceptional Powers” legislation is structured in such a way as to be used where there is mere suspicion of criminal involvement. That is, criminal conviction is not actually required.

Of course, this legislation flies in the face of the founding premise of justice – “innocent until proven guilty” - but then anyone who believes in this premise – the inalienable right to justice - has never had dealings with West Australian police.

In my own experiences – as a person who has never had a criminal conviction - information as to why I became a police target was denied to me through ‘Freedom of Information’ (FOI) due to a Protected Agency clause (Section 31, Clause 5 of the FOI Act). This would differ somewhat to the Police exercising “Exceptional Powers” over a retailer. The retailer would at least be told that police had information on them which linked them to criminal involvement; at this point the retailer would be hit by the blue wall of silence…..” We are not obliged to divulge that information.”

In my case I had hit that wall even earlier.

Police had followed me, harassed me,  broken into my home and placed listening devices in my home, place of work and vehicle, tapped my phones, removed property from my premises, spoken to neighbours, put surveillance (overt and covert) on my place of work and home, targeted my then employer, tried to entrap me on at least two occasions, harassed my partner, raided and arrested two separate sets of neighbours (I had moved house during the course of the operation) and generally made arseholes of themselves for over a year. I would ultimately lose my job, my home, my partner and my life in Perth when I chose to leave and put years of shit behind me.

When I attempted to establish why I had been targeted by police over two years after the operation had ended (?) the FOI Unit of the WA Police Service rejected my application stating that the WA Police Service had no information [however] they would neither confirm nor deny the existence of any information and that the information would be held by the State Intelligence Service which was a protected agency under the FOI Act. The concluding statement…“In considering your correspondence I have determined that if documents of the kind you have requested did exist, they would be exempt under Clause 5 of Schedule 1 of the FOI Act. Clause 5 refers to the application of exemptions for reasons of Law Enforcement, public safety and property security…..” My application was rejected on these grounds in bold no less.

In the same correspondence it was noted: “Rights of Review…… If you are dissatisfied or aggrieved by the decision of this agency regarding access to documents, you can apply for a review of that decision. An explanation of the Review and Appeal Process is provided in the document attached to this notice of decision.” No such document was attached…… 

I dropped a line back to the letters author, Officer Peter A Meyercort, with:

“It would seem that section 31 and Clause 5(2) of the FOI Act excludes police from providing information for reasons of Law enforcement, public safety and property security. Might I ask for the paradigms around the definition of “for reasons of Law enforcement, public safety and property security” under this clause?

You noted that, “an explanation of the Review and Appeal Process is provided in the document attached to this notice of decision.” Might I point out that no such information was attached and might I request that this information is mailed to the above address as soon as possible?”

Following the rebuttal of FOI, I then lodged an appeal with the Internal Audit Unit of the WA Police Service and was again denied with ….”I concur with the determination made by Freedom of Information Services, in that the decision to refuse you access is primarily based on matter that is exempt under clause 5 (2) of Schedule 1 of the Act which refers to documents created by an exempt agency. Further, the information you seek would be contained in a document, which is likely to have been created by officers of the State Intelligence Office, which is a Schedule 2 Exempt Agency. Therefore, I am of the view, Freedom of Information Services were justified in refusing access to the material requested in your application of the 26 July 2005. “

I then lodged a complaint with the FOI Commissioner. The Commissioner had to determine whether the information that I was requesting existed. This of course is impossible to determine as police have no obligation to confirm or deny the existence of information. To compound the complexity of the situation (hypothetical nature of material) even if the Commissioner had found in my favour police could cite the “exempt agency” clause and the material in all probability would be denied. 

I retracted my complaint after it became obvious that the FOI Commissioner would find in the WA Police Services favour (there was no proof of the existence of the material) and because the complaint I had submitted to the FOI commissioner – including allegations of official corruption to explain that it was in the interests of Law enforcement, public safety and property security that this information was made available to myself  – would be sent to the WA Commissioner of Police and be published in the public domain as part of the FOI process.

As I put it in an email to the FOI Commissioners office in November of 2005:

“…. I find it a bit ironic that individuals are compromised under FOI policy and procedure. It seems like a reasonable call on my part – these guys have my name, address, copies of documents, and god knows what else. Now FOI will provide the WA Police Service with material that is related to allegations of (possible) official corruption relating to an ex Deputy Commissioner of Police, now politician, who resigned his ministerial folio under a corruption cloud. (What is wrong with this picture?) “  

The Ex Deputy Commissioner of Police being one Bob Kucera, Minister for Health in 2002 and the driving force behind the Cannabis Control Bill. 

I intend to come back to this later but perhaps you can see the potential of the legislation in September of 2002. Perhaps, more importantly, it indicates the view that some authority figures had taken to the industry in that we were seen as little more than criminals with links to outlaw motorcycle gangs and organised crime.

Labor denied that the legislation could unfairly discriminate against law abiding retailers. Clearly though the legislation could. At a meeting with Wayne Salvage – where he was acting as a spokesperson for Bob Kucera – Salvage tried talking down the notion of the potential impact these laws could have (then cast as “reasonably ought to know”) and when I pointed towards several pieces of legal advice that stated otherwise he candidly came out with: “You know that you can’t trust lawyers don’t you?” Hahaha!” I laughed….. “Are you telling me we can trust politicians?”

2.

Meaningless mosaic of languishing limpid fetal sex
derisive trepidous and incongruous
the belly of the beast spills forth
embellishing those around in a green goulash of purulent shit…..

Matt and I would have received a visit by two officers of the ‘Organised Crime Group’ (OCG) between the 20 -24th of April 2003 - just days after I had featured in press. I will never forget the day and neither will Matt.

The two officers had been backed up by others; it was a setup –   smoke and mirrors based on a loose premise… a cold case that had been signed, sealed and delivered a year before the day. The store had been trading for over ten years and had not once received a similar visit by police… highly coincidental given, unbeknown to us, we were lobbying against a Draconian clause written into legislation by high ranking WA Police Service officers; a clause that was now being pushed through parliament by a one time Deputy Commissioner of Police. High ranking, powerful officers who, besides being connected to one another through professional and political allegiances, were connected to the same department and the same people that were now making their intent clear.   

At least one more undercover officer had been stationed outside the store in a late model dark blue Holden Commodore – sitting in wait. Another had entered the store when Matt had been taken out the back for questioning. This officer – a stranger masquerading as a customer - had asked me what type of light was most suited for growing “cannabis” only moments after I had informed him that police were in the store. Until then it hadn’t occurred to me this guy may be a cop – now it was damned obvious. No cannabis grower on the first meet would ask such a stupid question – particularly after being told that cops were present at the scene. The guy would have quite simply legged it or made small talk so as not to look suspicious; perhaps, discussed lettuce or tomatoes but definitely not cannabis. Only a cop would ask such a stupid goddamned question.

I looked up to see a malevolent smirk on his face. A look that seemed to say, yeah, you smart arsed bastard, we’re about to fuck you left right, sideways and centre. Just thought we’d let you know before we do it. He turned and walked quickly from the store. “Thanks,” he said.

Author's note:

Our visit by police is not so dissimilar to another scenario that occurred in 2003. The community sector organization, Phoenix, which represented the sex industry in WA and was responsible for education on sexually transmitted diseases and was funded by the Health Department - Kucera’s folio at the time – had lobbied against a prostitution Bill that Labor was putting through the WA parliament. As the political head of the Health Department and as an ex high ranking police officer, Kucera – as with the Cannabis Control Bill - had a lot to do with the intended legislation.  

WA practices a ‘containment policy’ towards brothels where technically prostitution is still illegal and this, it is argued, has led to corruption at several levels. Under the containment policy, Brothels operate under the informal ‘sanction’ of police via the ‘containment policy’ (not a written, approved policy as such but an informally established arrangement between police and brothel operators). The intonations are obvious

In early 2003, a WA Brothel owner Mary Anne Kenworthy was charged by police with running a brothel after she became imbroiled in an argument with two police officers at her Langtrees business premises. It was bizarre. She had been openly operating brothels for many years under the WA containment policy and had long been an outspoken advocate for reforms and workplace safety for sex workers. Police had allowed her to operate brothels – technically a crime – for many years…. Now they wanted to pull the pin on her – charge her for what she had been doing openly with police approval for many years.. It didn’t add up and the charges were later dropped by an embarassed DPP.

The Bill put before parliament was slated by the conservative Liberals. It was up to Labor to get the Green vote in the upper house. The Greens – or at least Giz Watson from the Greens - didn’t support the Bill based on lobbying from Phoenix et al. Rather than making amendments to the Bill to satisfy its detractors, Labor refused to budge – in this respect it was incredibly stupid politicking that would become the hallmark of Kucera’s career. The Bill collapsed and Labor was left red faced over the affair.

Phoenix had raised concerns over several aspects of the Bill. One of these was the imposition of harsh penalties for sex workers who continued to illegally ply their trade. Another aspect they saw as highly problematic was heavy handed regulations that were largely impossible to police and would lead to many sex workers choosing to work illegally. The contradictions were obvious. The Australian Federation of Aids Organisations made note of this at the time, in a letter addressed to Michelle Roberts MLA, The Minister for Police (February 2003);

“The fact that licensed sex workers would be subject to intrusive provisions such as requirements to provide finger and palm prints and submission to medical examination provides little incentive to work legally.

No other jurisdiction in Australia has adopted an individual licensing system due to the costs of policing such a system and the negligible benefits to sex workers or the public. There is no justification for the high level of surveillance implied by such an approach.

Given that a significant number of sex workers are likely to seek to work outside the licensing system created by the proposed legislation, a two tiered industry of legal and illegal operations is likely to evolve.”    

Much like the Cannabis Control Bill, Labor seemed to have mixed messages in the legislation and on the one hand sort to alleviate, while on the other antagonize the problems associated to an industry. 

The driving force behind this Bill was John Hyde MLA, the member for Vincent, an area where street prostitution was rife. He had gained much support in the Town of Vincent by committing to voters that he would clean up the problem. Legalised prostitution it was argued would help in doing this along with tougher sentencing for illegal street prostitution.

Along with John Hyde, Michelle Roberts, the Minister for Police, was pivotal in the Bill.

Shortly after the Bill had collapsed media began surfacing as to some Phoenix resources – one of these being information telling prostitutes how to keep their “Johns” (Clients) happy and keep them coming back as regulars. The Phoenix resource, it was argued by Phoenix, was developed in order to create a safer working environment for female sex workers. The rationale being that regular clients are less inclined to assault sex workers  – thus, regular clients pose less risk and create a safer working environment. This of course makes sense. A prostitute is unlikely to encourage a violent psychopath to return.

Hyde – whose Northbridge office, at the time, was next to a tax payer, WA Health Department funded drug users group (WASUA) which gives out far more inflammatory information, than Phoenix ever gave out, on how to inject various illicit drugs, how to use cocaine, speed, heroin, how to best avoid arrest etc along with over a million syringes every year (if giving the means of ingestion to junkies isn’t normalizing/glamorizing an illegal act than what is?) - and others argued that the resources were irresponsible, inflammatory, and that they glamorized/normalized sex work (an illegal activity which only months before they had tried to legalize).

Soon after the media began surfacing, Kucera announced that Phoenix would no longer receive funding from the Health Department. Their funding was pulled and their staff left unemployed. Other than this, Federal authorities were called in to investigate the matter. Felicity Lewis, the head of Phoenix was left unemployed, distraught and shaken and was diagnosed with cancer shortly after the affair.  In her own mind she had been hung out to dry by media, the Health Department and WA politics.   What wasn’t mentioned at the time was that it was Kucera’s department (the WA Department of Health) that had allowed the resources to be printed in the first instance and in an independent audit it would be the Health Department that would be called to task – not Phoenix.  

A letter to Kucera, from the Australian Federation of Aids Organisations, around the time of this affair outlines.

Minister for Health, WA
19 June 2003

Dear Minister,
The Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations is extremely concerned about the implications of your decision to terminate funding of the state sex worker organization, Phoenix, effective - we understand - from June 30th.

We urge you to re-consider the decision. We do so particularly in light of the independent audit report you had commissioned, which exonerates Phoenix from any significant irregularities and which points out that the only problems identified arose from inadequate control and approval processes developed by the Department of Health. Had these processes and controls been put in place by the Department, any concerns regarding the content of resources produced by Phoenix could have been met at an early stage….We are aware of your concerns that Phoenix resources ‘glamourise’ sex work and contain material ‘outside acceptable community standards’. We point out that depicting positive images and messages about the industry is an important strategy to gain and sustain the confidence of sex workers in the health education services provided by Phoenix. We also point out that resources produced have not been intended for the general public, and hence should not be judged according to broader community standards but the standards of the industry concerned. Members of the general public would have had to take quite deliberate, conscious steps to obtain the material. …Minister, we also understand you raised the matter of Ms Janelle Fawkes’s travel and attendance at a “junket” to the International Conference on AIDS in Asia and the Pacific in Melbourne in 2001. Minister, that trip was not funded by your government; it was funded by this organisation.
  
We look forward to your re-consideration of this issue and would welcome the opportunity to provide further information in relation to it.

Yours faithfully
Don Baxter
Executive Director
cc. Hon. Geoff Gallop, Premier of Western Australia
Hon. Jim McGinty, Attorney General, Western Australia

The similarities were striking; Kucera, the WA Police Service and the WA Department of Health.

It could be argued that political payback via authorities was the hallmark of the WA State Labor Governments years between 2002 – 2003. This of course and corruption; a list of WA state Labor politicians forced to resign or sacked by 2007 due to a corruption scandal involving the one time disgraced and jailed ex WA Labor Premiere, Brian Burke, who had become a political lobbyist and successfully infiltrated state politics once again. Labor's hall of shame:

Aug 8, 2005. Former clerk of the WA Parliament Laurie Marquet is charged with 55 corruption, stealing and drug offences after a CCC investigation. Marquet dies before facing trial.

February 28, 2006: Former Labor MP Graham Burkett is sentenced to 14 months jail after a CCC investigation reveals he was paid kickbacks to fast-track approvals for a childcare centre developer.

August 25, 2006: Former police minister John D’Orazio is forced out of the ALP after CCC Video surveillance catches him discussing his traffic infringement problems with a man at the centre of a corruption probe.

October 16, 2006: Education Department director-general is forced to resign after the CCC reveals his department failed to properly investigate alleged sexual misconduct by teachers against children.

November 8, 2006: Small business minister Norm Marlborough is sacked after he is caught lying to the CCC and exposed acting at behest of former corrupt WA Labor premier Brian Burke.

December 14, 2006: Ljiljanna Ravlich is demoted over her handling of the CCC-exposed complaints debacle that cost Albert his job two months earlier.

February 25, 2007: Environment minister Tony McRae is sacked over phone tap evidence suggesting he manipulated a planning decision to gain a benefit from Julian Grill, business partner of Burke.

February 27, 2007: Former resources minister John Bowler is sacked after phone taps and a CCC recording device in Grills home expose him leaking confidential information to Burke and Grill.

February 28, 2007: Labor backbencher Shelley Archer is exposed by the CCC acting as a go between for Burke.

March 1, 2007: Deputy director-general of the Department of Industry and Resources, Gary Stokes, is stood down pending an investigation into leaks exposed by the CCC.

March 9, 2007: Three state ministers’ chiefs of staff, Nathan Hondras, Simon Corrigan and Rewi Lyall are sacked or resign over CCC revelations about their conduct and dealings with Burke and Grill.

Post Script

Section 7a was overturned after vigorous lobbying by members of the WA “hydro” industry. During the lobby 3 separate pieces of legal advice, including one from a QC, stating the legislation was “Draconian” and would cast a wide net, would be ignored by the WA Labor party. In one instance, legal advice sent to Kucera’s office would disappear until the WA Greens were tipped off about the situation and made calls that the advice should be put before parliament.

Simon O’Brien, the opposition (Liberal) drugs spokesman would receive a visit from police after a tip off by Kucera that O’Brien had presented cannabis before the parliament. It would emerge that O’Brien had used dried parsley to demonstrate the weights that Labor proposed to decriminalise and no charges would be laid. Kucera, a veteran policeman, seemingly couldn’t tell the difference between dried parsley and cannabis – while other members of parliament could.  

The Honourable Bob Kucera (Ex Deputy Commissioner of Police, of Julian Ripley and ‘Mickelberg Stitch’ Fame) would refuse to Amend Section 7a and lie on the public record during the process of the Bill. The Greens and the Libs would unite in the Upper House and overturn the clause but not before Kucera was shifted from the Health Folio and replaced under suspicious circumstances (allegedly because he made a "hash of the Bill")

Kucera would then take on two lesser folios.  

He would later be back benched (removed from these folios) under a corruption cloud and today is a spent force in WA State politics. Press surrounding this:

ABC Online (October 13 2005)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1481354.htm

Conflict of interest forces Kucera to resign

The Western Australian Minister for Sport and Seniors, Bob Kucera, has resigned after admitting he failed to declare a conflict of interest in a $90 million Cabinet decision.

Mr Kucera told Parliament he offered his resignation to the Premier Geoff Gallop last night and it was accepted.

"I now see that there has been a breach of the ministerial code of conduct," he said.

He says it was his fault alone that he did not tell Dr Gallop that both he and his wife had shares in Alinta when Cabinet voted last year to give Alinta $88 million to expand the Dampier to Bunbury pipeline.

Mr Kucera says a financial adviser has full control of his shares and superannuation and he did not have any day-to-day control.Despite this, he says he accepts full responsibility.

"My wife and I never sought to make any gain from public life." Mr Kucera says he will not be making any further comment.

Dr Gallop also revealed today that he knew the media were asking questions about Mr Kucera's shareholdings some time ago. He said he thought the matter had been dealt with and said he should have followed through.

"In hind sight perhaps we should have focused on it earlier," Dr Gallop said.
It is unclear whether Dr Gallop will replace Mr Kucera or allocate his portfolios to existing ministers.

However, Opposition Leader Matt Birney says he is concerned by Dr Gallop's admission that in hindsight he could have acted sooner to ensure Mr Kucera adhered to the Ministerial Code of Conduct.

Mr Birney says he wants to know why Doctor Gallop did not do more at the time.
"I suspect that the only reason Bob Kucera resigned was because the Opposition raised the matter in Parliament publicly yesterday," Mr Birney said.

"I would hate to think what might of happened if in fact we hadn't raised that matter yesterday."

Kucera would resign politics in or around 2006.

The leader of the Labor Party at that time (Geoff Gallop) would resign citing depression in 2005.

A string of Labor politicians, between 2003 – 2008, would be ousted from the party for corruption; one later being imprisoned for taking kick backs.

The WA Labor party lost leadership in 2006.

The WA Liberal party now holds power and are in the motions of rolling back Labor's Cannabis Control Bill.

South Australia totally overturned its’ liberal cannabis laws in or around 2004 and now has amongst the toughest laws in Australia.

The sale of smoking implements (“bongs”) was banned there in 2007, and fines of $20,000 exist for anyone found in possession of hydroponic indoor growing equipment (without reasonable cause).  

South Australia became the first regulated hydroponics retail industry in the world in 2009 after their State Government implemented laws that would require retailers to be of fit and sound character, and would require them to keep records of sales of HID lights and activated carbon filters (via sighting 100 points of identification) and then providing these records to the authorities by the end of each days trading.

The Australian Federal Government is today (2009) debating on legislating/banning the import of all implements used for cannabis. While the legislation is targeted towards bongs and other smoking implements, the legislation could easily be used to ban the import of growing equipment and fertilisers etc.   

In the period that Australian authorities have waged their war against cannabis, an ice epidemic emerged in that country. In the 2008 World Drug Report (UNODC WDR) Australia was singled out as now having the highest per capita consumption of ATS (Amphetamine Type Stimulants) in the world.

Labors CIN scheme would be rolled back by the State Liberal Government in August of 2011, replaced with much harsher laws, boosting penalties for possessing and growing the drug or selling smoking implements.

In the same month the same government declared a war against home (backyard) meth labs.

G.Low left Australia permanently in March of 2006 after several years of Police surveillance/harassment.

The experiences G.Low had in Australia changed the course of his life and he is now an ardent supporter of the repeal of ALL illicit drug laws. I.e. All illicit drugs should be legalised.

The "drug war" (a war against people - not drugs) has corrupted untold governments and police forces, given organised crime immensurable sums of money and power, targeted innumerous innocent civilians, imprisoned countless victims of an otherwise victimless crime, decimated predominantly poor communities, cost trillions of dollars, funded wars, and is the greatest social disaster of our times.

G.Low is currently writing two books – one on manufacturing nutrients and additives at home and the other on the war against drugs (“The Great Cannabis Swindle”... read excerpt).

He now lives in the free world and no longer calls Australia home.

On a final note......................................

Glow's design submission for new West Australian flag

The Great Cannabis Swindle .... Read about the Modern "Reefer Madness" campaign and UN and US collusion in the war on drugs