SUMMARY OFFENCES (WEAPONS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 September 2010.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (16:43): This bill was introduced by the Attorney-General, after the matter had achieved quite a significant history and subsequent to an extensive review that was undertaken post certain events (which I will refer to). The review precipitated a discussion paper, published by the department of the former attorney-general, which was circulated to consider knife laws and proposed amendments to the Summary Offences Act 1953.

There was an extensive consultation that started, I think, about this time last year, and what we have before us today is the culmination of that review and consideration by the government as to what should be done to streamline/strengthen/enhance protection for South Australians who are victims of an attack, particularly by the use of a knife but also with other offensive weapons.

I think it is important, for the purposes of discussing the extensive amendments which will be placed before the house which have been foreshadowed by the Attorney, myself and the member for Fisher, that I outline the current position. As members would be aware, under our Summary Offences Act 1953, there is a three-tiered approach to weapons offences.

Essentially, under section 15(1), it is an offence to carry an offensive weapon without lawful excuse. There are extra penalties that apply to carrying an offensive weapon or a dangerous article in the vicinity of a licensed premises at night—again, unless you have lawful excuse. So, within that strata, it is a two-tiered penalty system. It is an onus on the accused person to prove that there is a lawful excuse. Self-defence is not a lawful excuse, and a knife is already, under our current laws, an offensive weapon.

Secondly, we have offences in respect of dangerous articles. This sets out, also in section 15(1)(b) and 15(1)(ba), provisions that make it an offence to manufacture, sell, distribute, supply, deal with, possess or use a dangerous article without a lawful excuse. Within those provisions, there is also an extra range of penalties, similar to the offensive weapons regime, if one does any of those things within the vicinity of a licensed premises at night. In that category, the only knife that is a declared dangerous article is a bayonet. That is probably unlikely to be used significantly but, in any event, it is an important part of the regime.

Then we have prohibitive weapon offences, where it is again an offence to manufacture, sell, distribute, supply, deal with, possess or use a prohibited weapon. In this instance, where there is a prohibited weapon (and these are what I suppose you would call a very, very serious category), there are within that 13 categories of knives that are classified as prohibited weapons; these include a dagger, knife, flick-knife, butterfly knife, ballistic knife and throwing knife.

In this instance, there is absolutely no defence of lawful excuse. The only circumstance in which a person is allowed to undertake any of these activities (that is, the manufacture, sale, etc. of a prohibited weapon) is when the person themselves is exempt. So, it largely centres around the occupation of the person who is carrying the weapon, as distinct from the nature of the weapon itself. Members would be aware that there was a fatal knife attack in Grenfell Street probably close to three years ago, and the response of the government was to undertake public consultation on laws relating to knives. As I have indicated, that was followed by the publication of a discussion paper and distribution of the draft bill.

It is fair to say that there were very significant aspects of that discussion paper that met with objection in the community. I think it is also fair to say that, whilst the government has come in with a much more watered down bill, it has taken a few sidesteps to have some novel approaches to how we deal with some of this in the face of some of the government's more draconian approaches, if I can describe them that way, on the management of knives in these circumstances to probably enable some realistic success in the passage of the bill in this parliament.

I do not know what the government's motives were for watering it down but, clearly, the government was told very clearly out in the broader community that some of the proposed aspects of their reform would simply not be acceptable. A number of reasoned arguments were put successfully to ensure that the government did not progress them. Quite possibly, the new Attorney-General's approach to dealing with these matters may have had some influence as well. I do not know about that and I do not suggest it as being the case, only that it may have.

In any event, someone in the government saw the wisdom of not trying to press the ridiculous and we have ended up with this bill, introduced on 15 September, which, watered down though it may be, is certainly one which the opposition is prepared to support in general principle. However, we will seek some amendments because, in the course of introducing some novel approaches, we think there are circumstances where the application of some of the proposals is too broad and therefore would be unreasonable to monitor, supervise, prosecute or comply with.

There are three or four main areas of these proposed amendments to the Summary Offences Act. Can I say this, though: whilst this bill largely relates to ways the government sees are the most effective in stopping people, particularly young people, killing each other with knives, it does not in any way address the root cause of what has happened. The event that occurred in Grenfell Street involved young men under the age of 18 years in a public place. There had been the acquisition by one of them of a knife in a neighbouring retail outlet and that had been used to stab one of the other young boys. There is no need to go into all the detail of it, except that, tragically, one of these young boys died.

I make the point that, although there is a regime being introduced in this bill to deal with knives and, clearly, knives are able to kill people relatively easily, there are also a lot of other things that can do it. Rather than looking at what is important to reduce the level of dispute or conflict between the boys in the first place and avoiding that confrontation, this bill is just dealing with knives, a direction that does not resolve the fact that on the same occasion the same boy could have gone into the same shop and bought a variety of other pieces of equipment which, ultimately, also could have been a lethal weapon. It could be a ball point pen stabbed in the neck, a screwdriver, a pair of pliers, a hammer or an axe. The list goes on. The truth is that there are a lot of things that we have even in our ordinary homes in addition to knives that could be used as a weapon, and effectively, in killing another person.

I will use one comparison. When the government decided it would deal with attacks by dogs, a regime of legislation was introduced into this parliament. It happened after a savage attack on a young girl in the east Parklands by a dog. We had a regime introduced to muzzle and put leads on dogs to ensure that, in a public place, dogs were limited to walking and even peeing on a tree, but they were put under enormous restriction so this would not happen again. The reality is that 85 per cent of dog attacks against a person, I think it was at the time, were identified as occurring in someone's home. It is one thing to deal with knives but, unless we deal with the other weapons and we deal with the underlying cause, I regret to say that we are not going to deal with this issue. Boys will still kill each other unless we deal with those other aspects.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: And girls.

Ms CHAPMAN: The member for Davenport says, 'And girls', and that is absolutely right. It is true that many of these offences are committed by boys, but certainly there are females. I was referring to the specific incident in Grenfell Street which involved all boys, on my recollection of what happened. In the event, let us get to what the government has proposed in this legislation.

One is to make it an offence to sell a knife to a minor, that is, someone under the age of 16 years, as defined in this proposal. The bill creates a new offence if you do that, and the maximum penalty will be a $20,000 fine or two years imprisonment. A defence mechanism is to be included. The bill provides that, if the seller can establish that they require the buyer to produce evidence of age, or, upon evidence being produced, can reasonably assume that the buyer was above the age of 16 years, that will be a defence to a conviction of selling a knife to a minor.

The bill does not allow for classes of persons to be exempted, as indicated in the Attorney-General's second reading explanation; the government considers that that would create more red tape for retailers. It is, however, intended that specific types of knives can be exempted. Essentially, the way I see that is that, if a 14 year old boy or girl goes into Harris Scarfe to buy a bread knife and is unable to establish that they are over the age of 16 years but the retailer still sells the knife to them, the retailer will be prosecuted and they will be liable for that offence. If, however, the bread knife is a plastic takeaway knife (which is in an exempt category of knife), the retailer will not face prosecution.

It is the opposition's view that these provisions are equally unworkable without there being a broad set of exemptions. The logical one, as is often quoted, is not to put anyone through this process if they are a member of a scout club going in to buy the usual equipment.

[Sitting extended beyond 17:00 on motion of Hon. J.R. Rau]

Ms CHAPMAN: The second broad thrust of this legislation is to make it an offence to market a knife, to advertise that this is a knife that could be used in combat and/or is likely to stimulate or encourage violent behaviour. Again, there is a $20,000 fine if you do that or two years' imprisonment.

There will be power to make exemptions in the regulations, we are told by the government. The government suggests that supplies to the Australian Defence Force, for example, would need to be exempt. We have a different sort of regime here. Here people or groups can be exempt, but if the knife is one that you can hurt somebody with in any kind of combat or violent behaviour—and I looked back at the definitions of this—it is not the type of knife that is relevant, it is who might market it.

Again I simply make the point that this is a very narrow approach. All mature audience mainstream films containing violence have weapons used in them to kill, maim, harm or in the course of committing offences and frequently comment is made of the description of not only a weapon—knives, guns and things as well—but what they can do to people, and then in grisly detail what they do to people is splashed all over the screens for under 16 year olds to see every day.

They have access to it not only through films but through computer games, where usually the operator of the game has to kill someone with some kind of weapon—obviously indirectly via a button in the operation of the game. I just say to the government that simply to pick out knives and say that, except for some certain groups who are allowed to do this, you are not allowed to say that this knife can kill you or is able to be used in any combat situation, is artificial to be honest and not addressing the issue.

We move onto the possession of knives. This makes another level of possession under section 21E which will restrict the possession of knives in schools and public places. Quite frankly, if they are in possession of a knife without lawful excuse, then that ought to be the position, in my view, but nevertheless we are going to have a higher regime of penalties applying to this offence if it is around a school or a public place, and we are going to have higher levels again for subsequent offences. In that instance, I do not oppose that—I have always supported regimes of increase on subsequent offences or aggravated circumstances in an offence—but we are just creating another level.

We are creating another group of circumstances which have to be proved to be able to qualify. I thought the objective of this legislation was to keep it simple. It is one thing to introduce an offence not to sell a knife but it is another thing to introduce another level of categories which for prosecution purposes I think is going to be close to a nightmare and which does not resolve the principal issue.

In any event, we press on. Under this particular approach, this is supposed to give the police an alternative charge to a person with a knife; that is, an offensive weapon that is not a prohibited weapon in their possession but does not have a knife on or about their person or under their immediate control, so cannot be charged with carrying an offensive weapon. I think this is the old argument of not having a knife on your person but having it in your locker at school. The notion of possession here, as far as the opposition is concerned, is too wide and we are going to make some attempt to tidy this up by moving some foreshadowed amendments.

Again, if we make this a complicated process in obtaining a successful prosecution in circumstances where clearly someone should be brought to heel, then the government reform and our endorsing it will not do justice to what is intended. In this instance, though, I place on the record that the defence of lawful excuse will be available, as there will be instances where it is appropriate for a person to be in possession of a knife in a public place or a school.

For example, an electrician who has a knife to cut the plastic coverings that go around the copper things (whatever they are called) that go into electric light plugs when they are working at a school. They may have a knife in their possession but need to as a qualified tradesperson. Again, we are putting many people to a lot of inconvenience who would otherwise not be captured by this. The breadth of such an approach is of concern to the opposition.

Then we have the weapons prohibition orders and I suppose this is the more novel approach to what is being considered. In the interests of time, I will not go through all of the aspects of this which are outlined in the bill. Essentially, there will be provision for weapons prohibition orders and they will be somewhat like the current firearms prohibition order legislation which enables the police to ban someone who has a known propensity for violence from possessing or accessing prohibited weapons. In this instance the Commissioner of Police is the person who will issue these prohibition orders.

There is a certain provision for how that is to come into effect but, essentially, you have to be guilty of an offence of violence already or been declared liable to supervision under Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act by a court dealing with a charge of an offence of violence, and you have to be in possession of a prohibited weapon; and, in the event of that occurring it is likely to result in undue danger to life or property; and, thirdly, there is a public interest provision to prohibit that person from being in possession of a weapon. With those thresholds, the commissioner can issue an order.

Unlike firearms these orders will lapse after five years. A person subject to a weapons prohibition order—and I think this is where the situation becomes far more extensive—can be stopped and searched on site and any vehicle, vessel or aircraft they are in charge of can be stopped and searched. However, unlike the firearm prohibition orders, premises can only be searched if the officer suspects, on reasonable grounds, that they are occupied by or under the care, control and management of a person who has previously contravened a weapons prohibition order or who the officer suspects, on reasonable grounds, of contravening a weapons prohibition order.

Under section 21H, a person to whom a weapons prohibition order applies must not do certain things, including manufacturing, selling and distributing, etc. They also must not be present at a place where prohibited weapons are manufactured or sold, etc. So, they cannot be in the presence of a place where there is one or where they are made or be in the company of a person who has a prohibited weapon, or reside at premises in which there is a prohibited weapon and, finally, they must inform every other person over 18 years of age living or proposing to live at the same premises that there is an order against them and must ask every other such person whether or not they have or propose to have a prohibited weapon on the premises.

Frankly, these last two provisions are unworkable, counterproductive and absolutely absurd. The duty to notify residents is likely to be onerous, particularly in blocks of flats and apartments. It is simply not credible that a resident would frankly and openly advise a person subject to a weapons prohibition order that they have a prohibited weapon. Why would you tell somebody who is the subject of a WPO that you have a prohibited weapon? If you were a single girl living in an apartment in that circumstance would you want to disclose that? Do you think that if you are a tenant in a building and you are the subject of a WPO order that you are going to knock on the door of everyone else in that apartment block and say to them, 'Look, excuse me, my name is Mr So-and-So and I'm just letting you know that I am subject to a weapons prohibition order. Have you got a spare cup of sugar?' or ask them, 'Would you like to come to dinner?' It is just simply absurd.

The bill makes it an offence to supply a prohibited weapon to a person to whom a weapons prohibition order applies, or to permit such a person to gain possession of a prohibited weapon. Even in this situation, to supply someone in those circumstances does require that you know in the first place that they are subject to a WPO. The person who has a prohibited weapon on or about their possession or under their immediate control must not be in the company of a person to whom a weapons prohibition order applies.

We have this whole dynamic where someone in a community, who is the subject of a WPO, has this legal relationship with all these other people around them—and they have to him—and they have to establish that they even knew that he had the WPO. The whole thing is absolutely absurd. I can see where the government is coming from. It is saying, 'Look, what we're really doing here is saying that, if you are a pretty dodgy person, if you have a bit of history, we want to be able to quarantine you from getting access to firearms'—as they do with firearms—'but, in this instance, we are going to extend it to knives, and we are going to have a different set of rules for that.' The government is not only not going to let someone have the right to be in possession of these things, or go anywhere near them or be in the same premises where they are made or manufactured or sold or anything else—you cannot go into a shop or a factory, and so on—but it is putting this huge onus on the people around them, who may not know the full circumstances.

The opposition is looking for ways to support the government to do whatever it takes to help us prevent the reoccurrence of the events of Grenfell Street. However, we just cannot see our way clear, Mr Attorney, to see this as workable or acceptable. So, again, we will be looking to provide some amendments. There is a right of appeal to the Administrative and Disciplinary Division of the District Court by a person who is aggrieved by a decision of the commissioner in relation to these WPOs. I have seen, I think, a foreshadowed amendment of the government to deal with an aspect of the application of that appeal process, which I will not traverse, but I can indicate that we will be consenting to that amendment.

Now we come to the search powers aspect of the bill. As members are aware, the police have certain powers to search vehicles and premises in a number of circumstances. There are thresholds which they usually have to apply in order to do that. They are not allowed to simply grab people off the street just in any circumstance and start questioning, arresting, strip searching, etc.—there are a whole lot of rules that go with it.

This bill, though, is going to extend the powers of the police in three areas. The current search powers require that a police officer form a reasonable suspicion that a person has possession of a weapon before a search can be conducted. For example, if somebody has come out of a store and is suspected of having a weapon in their possession, the police officer can approach them—provided they can later satisfy that there is a reasonable suspicion; for example, they have had a tip-off or they have observed someone put the weapon in their pocket—search them, arrest them and so on. That is pretty simple, and it is fair.

These new search powers are different. The bill provides that a search may be conducted 'as reasonably required for the purpose of ensuring compliance with a weapons prohibition order issued by the commissioner'. People, premises and vehicles can be searched for prohibited weapons, and any weapons found seized, pursuant to section 21J. So now, once a WPO order has been issued, if the police know who the recipient of that order is and that they are bound by it, and if that person is walking along the street, they can say, 'We are required to search you just to check that there is compliance with the order.' It is not that they have been associating with some other dodgy company, that they have just come out of a store that sells weapons, or anything else, but that they can simply stop them at any time, anywhere because they are the subject of an order.

The second situation is where the police are using metal detectors on any person who is in, or is apparently attempting to enter or leave a licensed premises or a public place holding an event declared by the Commissioner by notice in the Gazette (section 72A). Police officers are not authorised to carry out a metal detector search of a person in his or her place of residence, or in a hotel room, lodging room, or any other place in which he or she is temporarily residing.

I think it is clear from public comment made by the Attorney-General (it may have been the Premier) that what is intended here is to make sure that knives do not come into hotels or places where an event may be held—that is, a concert of some kind—where young people are coming together, to make sure that there is a metal detector search. I think it has also been made very clear that there is no intention—because this was a concern for members of the opposition—for it to be something where a police officer will rush into someone's home with a portable metal detector and ask them to comply with the search.

The third area concerns special powers to prevent or control incidents of public disorder, where a police officer of or above the rank of superintendent has reasonable grounds to believe that an incident involving a serious offence may take place in an area. Once an authorisation is made, the police officer can, in those circumstances again, stop and search a person and any property in the possession of such a person if the person is in or is apparently attempting to enter or leave the target area. In these circumstances, it is proposed that these authorisations apply for up to 24 hours, or at least no more than 24 hours.

Again, in this instance I think it is fair that the opposition say that the government is trying to arm the police with the necessary powers to enforce some of this new regime, but we think they have gone too far, and it is too broad. We do want to rein that in so that it is more effective for the police and can be complied with by the law-abiding community and, finally, catch the very small percentage in the community who are doing the wrong thing and not incur an unreasonable expense both in time and money, etc., to all the other law-abiding citizens.

Finally, I indicate that there are exemptions for prohibited weapons. The bill proposes to repeal a range of general exemptions for a prohibited weapon, which are currently set out in section 15(2)(a) of our principal act. Our understanding is that it is the government's intention to include these in a revised regulation to deal with it.

Obviously, as I have said before in this house, we are not usually too happy to have things transferred from act to regulation. We will seek to amend the bill to clarify that the regulations can deal with exemptions of classes of persons and insert the general exemptions in the regulation, or make the commencement of the bill contingent on the revised regulations to ensure that there is no hiatus for people relying on those exemptions. Essentially, show us the revised regulations and hold up the bill until we have got them or, alternatively, make some provision for exemption of classes of persons in the meantime.

We do have—as we would expect, and I think it is important—a process of scrutiny by an annual report to the parliament through the minister on the use of metal detectors and the use of special powers to prevent serious violence. We would like there to be a little bit more detail in that and if the Attorney-General has had an opportunity to read our amendments, he will see that we are looking for a little bit extra in the annual report.

We would hope that the government will support that. On our assessment—and we may be wrong—the further information sought is something that should be easily accessible to the Attorney to insert in the report or at least to the commissioner to insert in the report as he or she reports to the Attorney.

The bill also provides for a power to vary or revoke individual exemptions, i.e., if a person becomes unfit to possess a prohibited weapon. That is reviewable by the District Court. Also this bill provides for general weapons amnesties to be conducted in relation to dangerous articles and prohibited and offensive weapons. There is no question that the opposition fully supports those.

In essence, the areas of reform that we are seeking in the amendments and that we would hope the government would consider favourably are, firstly, to limit the applications of weapons prohibition orders to people whose offence of violence involved a weapon, rather than simply an offence of violence; secondly, to increase the scope of the commissioner's annual report to parliament through the minister to include the use of weapons prohibition orders; thirdly, if considered necessary, to ensure that the area prescribed for area authorisations is not too broad (and we are happy to look at what the government might outline in that regard); and finally, to oppose the removal of the exemptions for prohibited weapons from the act.

With that, I do indicate that there are some other aspects that we may not consider it necessary to follow because I notice there are also amendments foreshadowed by the member for Fisher. We will be looking for some information on the range of knives that is exempted from prohibition of sale to a minor to ensure that that is not unnecessarily onerous. We are also looking for some assurance that restrictions on people subject to weapons prohibition orders and co-residents of their premises are workable and constructive and also to consider the relevance of criminal intelligence to weapons prohibition orders. It may well be that these are aspects we take further in another place.

I have outlined quite extensively the practical application, for example, in a block of flats, and if the Attorney is able to outline how that would all still work in practice and we are comfortable with that, then perhaps that can pass without any further consideration.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Tourism) (17:24): I thank the member for Bragg for her contribution in relation to this matter. I just wanted to say a couple of general things about it. First of all, the comparison between the regime operating for knives and firearms is useful up to a point but not useful beyond that point. Obviously unless we are living in one of the rural areas of Australia and we have problems with rabbits or foxes, the average household has no need for a firearm or to use a firearm in the ordinary course of their daily business.

One could not say that about knives, so immediately, whereas it might be reasonable to say that, in the built-up areas of Australia, a firearm is not a required, necessary or usual household item—unless one is Charlton Heston, of course—it is not possible to say that in respect of knives. That necessarily creates something of a dilemma because here we have these useful domestic items that may be badly misused and cause serious harm.

The honourable member referred to the importance of dealing with the question of conflict. To the extent that her remarks ranged across the philosophical domain of people not getting on, I obviously agree with her, but my colleague the Minister for Families and Communities and others probably have more work to do in that area than I do. Certainly, the Summaries Offences Act is not intended to be a piece of legislation that assists us with dispute management.

The member for Bragg also raised the point that other household items, such as screwdrivers and ballpoint pens and so on, might be used to do serious harm. That is, of course, true. But, if you are looking at a continuum that has at one end of it a pistol and at the other end of it a piece of paper, I think you would say the pistol was pretty dangerous wherever you have it, the piece of paper is pretty harmless wherever you have it, a knife is tending towards the dangerous side of that spectrum, and I would suggest, if I can be so bold, that a ballpoint pen is tending towards the less dangerous end of that spectrum.

I have seen films where people, such as James Bond, have been able to use a ballpoint pen to harm an assailant with quite serious effect. In fact, if I recall correctly, in the film Silence of the Lambs, Anthony Hopkins was able to remove just a small bit of one of those retractable pens and stick it in his teeth. Then, about an hour and a half later in the film, as I recall, he was able to unpick a lock on his handcuffs by regurgitating this small piece of the pen, unpicking the lock and then pulling his arms out when Sergeant Boyle was not looking—I won't go further than that because that is when the film descends into the macabre. But we have to accept that Hannibal Lecter is an unusual person and, after all, a creature of fiction. So, I am not quite as worried as the member for Bragg about ballpoint pens.

Whilst we are on the subject of films, the member for Bragg raised the question about what kinds of knives might be exempted. I can do no better than to quote Paul Hogan from Crocodile Dundee, where he said to the chap with the knife, 'No, this is a knife'—and he produced a rather large knife.

I think that, to some extent, one has to allow common sense to apply here. A very small penknife is obviously a completely different thing from a large hunting knife and will obviously be treated differently. So, I am not all that worried about that. The fact is that knives, for reasons that entirely escape me, appear to be something of a status symbol or a trendy item amongst some sections of our community, particularly young men. It appears that, at the moment, young men of particular backgrounds or who hang around particular groups seem to think it is cool to be out and about sporting a knife. As far as I know, none of them thinks it is cool to be out and about sporting a pen or an egg flip or a whisk or a potato peeler—

Ms Thompson: A meat thermometer?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Or a meat thermometer.

Mr Pederick: A turkey baster?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: A turkey baster. I'm working my way around the kitchen, Mr Acting Speaker. A plate could be included in that, a wooden spoon, a frying pan, or a tea towel, etc. I could go on, but I am starting to exhaust my memory of what is in the kitchen.

Anyway, the point is that there are many items that can be abused if you wish to do so. Again, I do not want to descend too much into the world of the cinema, but I think even tea towels on some occasions have been used to great effect by ne'er-do-wells against perfectly innocent people—by coming up behind them, sticking the tea towel around their neck and pulling it very tight. So, if one wants to get really serious about this, even tea towels would be on the list.

We thought about that. I thought about it, and those who advised me thought about it and they said, 'No, tea towels, by and large, are not dangerous,' and we put pens in the same category and, perhaps controversially, screwdrivers as well. That is why we have narrowed it down to knives. I hope that makes people feel better. It is knives because they are inherently dangerous, whereas tea towels, egg flippers and those little rings that you do poached eggs in are not necessarily inherently dangerous.

The member for Bragg said something about computer games and how terrible it is that people shoot themselves on them. I agree with her. Unfortunately, it is not within my gift to be able to get rid of those terrible things. If I had my way, all young people would be playing Space Invaders, Pac-Man, or Asteroids, which was a special favourite of mine. It was only in black and white, but it did have that sort of motion—

The Hon. K.O. Foley: Space Invaders—I was there when it was invented, the first machine.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, there you are. I agree with the honourable member but, again, this government neither has the power constitutionally, nor do I think I can persuade my colleague the Deputy Premier and some of the others, even if we did; and, besides that, it has nothing to do with the Summary Offences Act, so I think we can move on.

There was the question about aggravated offences. I understand the point the honourable member is making and, generally speaking, I agree with her. I think aggravated offences often have a complicating effect on prosecutions, and it may be that on occasions the DPP would be happier if there were not aggravated offences. However, in this case, because we are trying to make a particular point about the terrible business of people hanging around in pubs with knives, we think it is one of those exceptional circumstances in which an aggravated offence is warranted. I agree with the honourable member that that should not be the norm—we should not go around willy-nilly putting aggravated offences into the statute book all the time. I agree entirely. However, in this case I think it is warranted.

As to the amendments we have foreshadowed, I can indicate to the honourable member that, in fact, both of them came as a result of consultation that we undertook with the courts. His Honour the Senior Judge of the District Court recommended the amendments that we have included as government amendments, and I would hope that the honourable member and those in opposition would assist His Honour and the District Court by simply accommodating their requests in relation to those amendments. They are nothing that has been suggested by the government, as such, but obviously I like to consult with people about what we are doing; this came back and we think it is an intelligent—

Ms CHAPMAN: That is new—not for you, but for your predecessor.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, we try. So that is where we are going with that. The honourable member raised a number of matters in terms of the amendments that the opposition might be putting up, and I will deal quickly with those so that the opposition has some idea what the government's view about them might be.

First, in relation to the suggestion that the member for Bragg has made about reporting, can I say that I think it is a very constructive suggestion and, with respect, would like to adopt it. I think that improves the bill. With respect to the second matter, which is really a philosophical matter, the member for Bragg says some things should not be in the regulations, they should be in the act. It is a philosophical matter, or a point of view.

I am advised that parliamentary counsel's preference is to do it this way because it will mean that, if a member of the public or someone who is not a lawyer were to pick it up, the legislation would be easier to comprehend with these in the regs, not in the act. I understand that the countervailing point is: will they look at the regs? Will they ever find out where they are? I understand the point.

At this point all I can say is that, in between here and somewhere else, I will have a think about it, but my view at the moment is that, if that is what parliamentary counsel has as its standard thing, I should probably try to be a good boy and comply with its general rules, because I think that I disagree with parliamentary counsel occasionally and I do not want to burn up all my credits on this.

The last matter the honourable member raised was the offence of violence point. The only thing I can say about that is that I suspect that we do have a difference of opinion about this. I would like to try to persuade the member for Bragg to reconsider her point of view. The offence of violence suggestion that has been made by the honourable member, I think, draws it too narrowly, because you can have a person who is a known ratbag who has on them a weapon. The fact that they have not used the weapon does not make it any less menacing that they are carrying it.

There is always the sort of implied threat that they may use it. Whilst I understand the concern the honourable member has, I am yet to be persuaded, despite her very powerful arguments on behalf of that proposition. I am not quite there with her yet. I still believe that the present drafting, which I acknowledge is broader than the opposition's proposal (and given the circumstances and the type of person we are dealing with here with these orders), is warranted. That is the way I think that we will approach it for the time being.

The honourable member foreshadowed that there may be other things that pop up between here and the other place, and, of course, I cannot comment on those presently. However, the overall thrust of the legislation, as I think the member for Bragg has acknowledged, is to try to make it easier for the police to deal with people who are out and about with knives; to make it harder for younger people, in particular, to buy knives; and, with respect to those particular individuals who we already know to be violent or dangerous people, to give the police the opportunity of controlling their behaviour—or at least attempting to—in the same sort of way as we attempt to control the behaviour of people whom we know to be dangerous people around firearms.

I think that the thrust of the legislation is sound. I am grateful that the opposition agrees in principle with what we are trying to do (that is helpful), and it means that the parliament is sending a clear message because both sides are basically on the same page about the principle. It seems to me from what has been said today that it is really a point of drafting; that is, is it in the regs or is it in the act?

Also, there is this question about whether we can persuade the member for Bragg and her colleagues that the circumstances we are addressing are so serious as to warrant the broader definition, and I am still of the view that these are serious enough to warrant that. With those few words, or perhaps too many words, I think that I can finish up. I can indicate to all members here that, if they prefer that the committee stage be adjourned off to have a think—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The member for Fisher has told me that he will be withdrawing his foreshadowed amendment.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Pengilly): The member for Fisher has advised the table that he has withdrawn his amendment.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Thank you for that indulgence, Mr Acting Speaker.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

At 17:42 the house adjourned until Tuesday 9 November 2010 at 11:00.