GRAFFITI CONTROL (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 March 2012.)

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:16): I rise to continue my remarks from yesterday's debate on the rise in graffiti. While most agree that often it is youths who are caught by police while undertaking graffiti vandalism, the hardcore vandal is often aged over 20, well organised in a crew when undertaking attacks, and they undertake their vandalism late in the light. They have spotters keeping an eye out for the authorities, and have a disregard for any public or private property, including religious and public memorials of significance.

A national approach in tackling graffiti has often been dismissed over the last 25 years, as has a multiple government departmental attempt in tackling this crime that does not have or knows of any boundaries. As I indicated in my debate yesterday, the organisation Graffiti Hurts: Australia is a national not-for-profit charity institution developing and providing resources for all levels of government, industry, public service providers and the community to help reduce their increasing spend on tackling graffiti vandalism.

The organisation seeks support on a continuous basis to engage the community to actively help federal, state and local governments, as well as industry and businesses, tackle the issue of graffiti vandalism; to educate the community and our youth on the real effects of this gateway crime; and also to help reduce local antisocial behaviour with a national message and a national approach. Graffiti Hurts: Australia has a campaign to help educate communities to reduce the effects graffiti vandalism has on every Australian, and assists all levels of government to reduce their spend on graffiti vandalism to provide other more worthwhile community services than graffiti vandalism removal. If everyone gets together, we can educate and provide a cleaner, safer Australia for us all.

Graffiti Hurts: Australia has provided some very helpful comments, and I note that, as much as we support the Graffiti Control (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill, we will be moving amendments from this side. I will say that it is disgraceful when graffiti artists deface memorials, whether they be headstones or war memorials. It is the lowest form of the criminal act of graffiti vandalism that someone can do. I appreciate this legislation because it is making the penalties tougher. I also note that the shadow minister (the member for Bragg) will be pushing for some amendments in relation to the bill, but I indicate my support for the bill.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the house.

A quorum having been formed:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Attorney-General, you are closing the debate on the second reading of the graffiti bill.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (16:21): Yes, I am, and can I start by thanking everybody for their contributions. I wanted to say a few things about this in closing. First of all, it is clear from all the contributions that every member of this parliament to one degree or another has received feedback from their constituencies about this scourge of graffiti.

I think it is fair to say that everybody I have listened to in here who has made a contribution has expressed very strong views about how unsatisfactory this behaviour is. To that extent, I am delighted to see that the parliament is functioning in an apolitical fashion and that everybody is recognising that this is a problem shared by all of us, in all our constituencies, and that all members and their constituents have been touched by this.

I also pay particular tribute to the honourable member for Fisher who has for the whole time I have been here (and I have to say that I have been here a good deal less time than the honourable member)— and I remember coming here as a novice member—

The Hon. R.B. Such: A whipper snapper.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, I don't know what, but I will call myself a novice member anyway—

An honourable member: With a bit of experience.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: With a bit of experience, yes—and I remember being impressed by the passion that the honourable member for Fisher expressed about a number of issues. In those days he and I seemed to be particularly interested in some matters; in fact, he initiated me into the world of regulation of tattooing and body piercing. Up until the time I met the honourable member, it had never occurred to me that it was an area of endeavour and, there you are, it is something we have worked on.

On this issue, I have to say, the two of us have been very passionate advocates for further action, and I congratulate the honourable member on his passion and continuing work in this area. I am very pleased that he and I are able to be participants in this debate and supporters of this legislation. I do, however, express some concern that when you talk the talk it is often handy if you also walk the walk. I know that the honourable member for Fisher is going to be not only talking the talk but also walking the walk.

However, I have some concern, having regard to the material I have seen by way of foreshadowed amendments to be brought on by the opposition, that the main opposition party in this place is talking the talk but not walking the walk. I thought that became pretty clear this morning when the Hon. Stephen Wade went on Radio FIVEaa I think immediately following the honourable member for Fisher. The way I read the transcript was that he was a solitary voice out there pleading for softer penalties for graffiti offenders.

In saying that, though, can I actually thank the member for Bragg for having done the parliament and the government the courtesy of filing these amendments in this chamber? I often criticise the honourable member for not doing that but this time she has. Even though we have only had a day to consider them, I still would like to place on the record my appreciation for the fact that those amendments have been filed in here, which is something I have asked for repeatedly. It means that the government has had a chance to have a look at them.

It means, as I said yesterday, that the non-government members in this place—not opposition members but the Independent members—have also had a chance to look at them and, therefore, have also had a chance to comment and reflect upon the actual position being taken by the opposition in this debate, and I think that is something which is very important. I formally thank the member for Bragg and the opposition for having done this house and all of its members the courtesy of providing us with their foreshadowed amendments because it means we are now having an informed debate, not a debate in a vacuum.

If the honourable member in another place reads the Hansard of this place, he might turn his mind to doing us the courtesy of allowing the member for Bragg to bring his amendments into this place so we get a chance to read them and comment on them so that our independent members here are not done the disservice of being ignored and so that the members in the other place have the benefit, for what it is worth, of having some informed debate here in this place that they might have regard to when they turn their minds to casting a vote elsewhere.

Thank you, member for Bragg, for that, and I thank all members of the opposition and I encourage you to speak to your party room, because all of you in this chamber who are members of the opposition are being diminished in your role as parliamentarians by not being given the opportunity of debating your own party's amendments. Anyway, I press on.

I can indicate that, having had the opportunity to reflect on the amendments overnight, it is the government's position that we do not support the amendments, and I will speak very briefly about why. Obviously, we can go into committee and do it at length in that regard but I think there is no need to do that. I can shortly state our objections and we can move on from there.

First, there were really only two amendments, in substance. The first amendment is removing the power to prescribe things from the regulations and transforming that into provisions of the act. That is basically the first one, and I will explain briefly why, with respect, the government does not support that.

There is a particular fetish that has crept into opposition amendments in the Attorney-General's portfolio, particularly, strangely enough, whereby anything that conceivably could be put in the act is put in the act instead of being put in the regulations. There are times when it is very important that the act contains the measures, particularly when you are dealing with powers and things of that nature, but not when you are dealing with matters of fine grain, particularly when you are dealing with things where, over time, the subject matter will change.

For example, if you wanted to prescribe types of weapons that you thought were dangerous, the market might change over time. Thirty years ago, I do not know how many nunchakus were out there. Probably, there were a few, because Bruce Lee was pretty popular then.

Mr Sibbons: Chuck Norris.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Chuck Norris; yes. Maybe there were nunchakus out there then, but there might be new weapons now, anyway, that nobody ever thought of 30 years ago which are out there in the public domain. How ridiculous that you would take the time of the parliament to pass an act of parliament to insert the word 'nunchaku' into a piece of weapons legislation when a simple regulation change would do. Of course, let us not forget that regulations are disallowable, anyway; if they are so obnoxious and weird they are disallowable.

There is a current fetish about taking things out of regulations and putting them in the act. Can I explain to you how weird this becomes: 'prescribed graffiti implement'—we want to put this into the act so it will stand for time immemorial until this parliament changes it—'a can of spray paint'—that, in and of itself, is not weird.

Ms Chapman: It's already in there.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It isn't weird; I agree. I did note in dispatches today somebody was talking about the latest trend which is to get a 20-litre can of paint, punch holes in the bottom of it and walk around dribbling paint all over the place. I make the point to members, does that come within the definition of 'a can of spray paint'? I do not think so.

The second element of it is 'a graffiti implement designed or modified to produce a mark'—so far, so good—'that is not readily removed by wiping or by use of water or detergent'. Again, you might think that is reasonable. It does not say 'detergent or other solvent or other cleaning material' but, fair enough, I am happy with detergent because that makes it a fairly expensive thing and most people should deal with that at home. Then, 'and is more than 15 millimetres wide'. Why 15 millimetres?

Can I ask this question: why not 10, why not 12, why not eight, why not two, why not six, why not five, why not 28? I do not know. I presume the Hon. Stephen Wade had a moment of inspiration when the light bulb went bing and the number 15 popped up. So that is what we got: a bing moment from the Hon. Stephen Wade and 15 millimetres.

I have had people say to me in public meetings where this issue has come up, and it has come up many times, 'Do you know that there are people who are using scratching implements on train windows—things like compasses, glass-cutters, screwdrivers, etc.—and they are scribbling their marks or other drivel onto the windows of public transport?' I think the member for Fisher alluded to this the other day.

Ms Chapman: It's called damage to property.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Sure it is; but bear in mind 'prescribed graffiti implement' is used in the context of this legislation to trigger a number of things including the capacity of the police to take it off you. lf we adopt this prescriptive put it all in the act type model that the Hon. Stephen Wade thinks is really cool, what we are going to have is this: the police can find a bloke wandering down the street with a 20-litre tin of paint with holes punched in the bottom dribbling the paint all over the place but they cannot take it off him because it is not a prescribed graffiti implement.

They can find some loser sitting in a train etching their initials into the train window with a compass, a glass-cutter, a bit of sandpaper or something else. Some of these trains have perspex windows, don't they? If you get the sandpaper out you can make a real mess of it! So they are doing all of that, but is that a can of spray paint? No. Is it designed or modified to produce a mark that is not readily removable by wiping or detergent? It possibly is. Is it more than 15 millimetres wide? I do not think so. So, again, bizarre.

What if the person decides that they are into fine-grained vandalism instead of the Rolf Harris style of vandalism, where you get the big brush out and you go whack, whack; or the Mr Squiggle sort of style? What if they are into the really fine-grained Kabuki style, where you get the fine textas that you get at Target and the texta colour produces a line no bigger than a ballpoint pen? Is that going to be 15 millimetres wide? I am not sure about that. I do not think so.

This fetish about taking everything out of the regs and putting it in the act produces bizarre outcomes. This is one of them. If we lock this in, the absurdity of the outcome will be frozen there like some insect in a bit of amber for everyone to look at, to their great embarrassment, for eternity, or at least until we change it. So, that is why we are opposing that. I think that covers all of the amendments of that particular ilk.

The other amendments are basically this: the Hon. Mr Wade stated on the radio today that he is worried about—and this is breathtaking—repeat graffiti vandals having their car taken off them. Do you know why? Because they might have walked there, or they might have gone on a pushbike, or they might have one of those rocket scooter things where you hold it in the front and wiggle your backside as the scooter wiggles down the street. I have seen those around the place. That is not a car either. What do they call those things?

Mr Sibbons: Sliders.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Sliders; that is it. You might have a slider. If you have a slider and you travel to the scene of the vandalism on your slider, you should not be able to have your licence taken off you. Well, hello, there does not have to be a connection between whether you drove to be a vandal, or whether you walked to be a vandal, or whether you were carried in a sedan chair to be a vandal. It does not matter. It is not relevant. What a peculiar, perverse outcome the Hon. Mr Wade advocated this morning. He was saying that all of those vandals who drive to the scene of a vandalism, 'Okay, we don't mind if you take the licence off them because they drove there,' but if they did not drive, if they went on a skateboard, or walked, or went in a sedan chair, or they had, presumably, a non-vehicle like a gopher—

An honourable member: Hot air balloon.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Hot air balloon, a glider.

Mr Bignell: Gyrocopter.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Gyrocopter.

Mr Bignell: Jet pack.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Jet pack. One of those things they used to have in Lost in Space, that was a jet pack, was it not, where they would go up in the air and—

Mr Bignell: Yes.

The Hon. J.R. RAU:The Jetsons. If you pick any of those things, any of them at all, nothing happens to your driver's licence. What the Hon. Mr Wade was telling FIVEaa listeners this morning was, 'Listen, you vandals out there, if you are going to go out and destroy someone's property, cause embarrassment and distress to people who are just getting on with their normal life, if you want your state, through local government and other government agencies, to be spending $12 million a year cleaning up your mess, but you don't want to lose your driver's licence, get your mate to drop you there, or just walk there, or, even better, park your car around the corner and walk, or get your mate to carry you.' What a joke. How could anyone take that seriously, but that was the proposition advanced today.

So, unequivocally, we say, and I think the honourable member for Fisher would say: 'If you are going to get involved in this idiotic behaviour, repeatedly, and the magistrate thinks the only way they can get your thick skull to absorb some information about: this is not right, is to take your driver's licence off you, well that's a matter for the magistrate.'

The Hon. R.B. Such: Or delay your P-plates.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Or delay your P-plates. That is a matter for the magistrate. Whether you drove to the scene of the crime determining whether the magistrate can affect your driver's licence is lunacy. I am surprised we do not have an amendment here that says, 'If you're wearing a green safari suit or if you're into Morris dancing you can't be picked up either.' What sort of other ludicrous criteria can you select out of the millions of possibilities?

I think I have probably explained the position as well as I can. We do not agree with this fetish of moving things into legislation when regulations are the more effective and responsive way of dealing with them. The idea that we should be shielding these criminals—repeat offenders—from the potential of a magistrate selecting a penalty for them which will acutely draw their stupidity to their attention (that is having their licence taken off them) is, quite frankly, ridiculous and we do not support it.

This is another example of the Hon. Mr Wade deciding that the interests of the criminal are more to weigh in one's balance than the interests of the victim, or the interests of the state in imposing a discouragement in the system. With those few thoughts, I will close the debate. I like to finish on a high note because I think that is always nice. It is always nice to finish with a happy thing.

The happy thing I want to say to the honourable member for Bragg and the members of the opposition on behalf of the government and, if it is not presumptuous, on behalf of the crossbenchers, is thank you. Thank you for doing us the courtesy of bringing the amendments into this chamber, because it has offered us the opportunity of considering them, it has offered the crossbenchers the opportunity of actually hearing a debate about something in particular rather than a debate in generalities that never gets anywhere, and it does mean that those in the other place, when they read the Hansard, if they wish to, at least have heard a couple of opposing views about these propositions. They will do with that what they will, but at least they have had the opportunity of considering what people might say in regard to these amendments.

I think that probably sums up our position. Hopefully I have made our position and the reason for our position clear in relation to the proposed amendments.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

Page 2, lines 11 to 13 and page 3, lines 1 and 2 [clause 4(1) and (2)]—Delete subclauses (1) and (2) and substitute:

Section 3—after the definition of minor insert:

prescribed graffiti implement means—

(a) a can of spray paint; or

(b) a graffiti implement designed or modified to produce a mark that—

(i) is not readily removable by wiping or by use of water or detergent; and

(ii) is more than 15 millimetres wide;

I will address my amendments 1 to 10 en bloc, to the extent that I will not repeat myself because some of these are consequential amendments. In essence, it is to deal with the question of ensuring as best as possible that we describe and define within the act, rather than in regulation, what we are talking about. My amendments essentially are to bring into the act, we think with some clarity, what we are talking about when we identify what we say is a prescribed graffiti implement. What we are starting with, just to remind the Attorney and those members following this debate, is that we currently have a Graffiti Control Act 2001.

I was not here in 2001. I can only assume that the previous Liberal government had seen fit to introduce specific graffiti control legislation out of the Summary Offences Act in recognition of how important it was that we manage this type of illegal and antisocial behaviour in the community. So, if there is any assertion that the opposition in some way is sort of going soft or weak in this area, then we totally reject that.

What we are asking for is some definition, as best we can, when we are dealing with what is captured. The very reason we are seeking to do that is not just the good principle of law that it is we on behalf of the people of South Australia who define what is illegal or inappropriate conduct and what implements will be used, etc., rather than the minister. That is a good, sound principle of law which, all too often, this government is ready to throw to the wind. But, in addition to that, the general community out there in the real world that sells anything from biros to coins, compasses or any other implement that may be used, in this case, for the purpose of causing graffiti—that is, a marking, as distinct from property damage which we have a myriad of laws to cover, and the Attorney well knows—needs to know what they need to do.

The reason is that they may sell an offending prescribed graffiti implement, whether it is the lady in the toyshop who I referred to yesterday or whether it is somebody in a hardware store who has equipment that ultimately could be used for the purposes of carrying out some graffiti. That is what this is all about. This is what is necessary.

I am sure that the Attorney would have received, as I have, letters from the Hardware Association of South Australia. They are very concerned about the potential penalties for people in the hardware industry who face up to 12 months imprisonment for selling a piece of equipment to a minor who has been involved in a multiple offence. These are very, very serious penalties which the government proposes to bring in through this bill. The very good law-abiding citizens who sell very ordinary things that can be misused by unquestionably mischievous young people are saying that this is just another level of red tape which they are going to have to comply with.

I think it is very clear that large textas or markers are being used. It is very hard to remove the ink stains. The hardware stores having to keep the register, and the incredible amount of red tape and paperwork that is going to be imposed on them, plead with me, on behalf of the hardware industry, and say, 'Please stop this. Please do not impose this on us.'

I say that the extra cost and burden for small business, of course, seems to be completely irrelevant to this government. Goodness, we have already spent half the week on trading hours legislation/holiday pay. Obviously, they do not give a toss about small business in this state.

What I want to make clear is this. The definition has been prepared by parliamentary counsel to be as definitive as possible so that everyone knows where they stand, not just the offender in this instance but the people who sell products in the ordinary course of business. They are going to have obligations and a duty of care and they will be required to prove that the product was bought for a lawful purpose. I think that it is quite unfortunate, at best, and pig-headed of the government to refuse to recognise how this will adversely affect small business, and to insist on imposing it, and leaving it in such broad terms.

I am concerned to hear in the course of the minister's second reading when he covers this issue that the use of coins, compasses and other instruments that would be used to scratch into the back of some equipment on a train and deface it and cause some property damage has anything to do with this legislation. It is possible it can be caught under it—there is no question about that—especially under his set of rules, but we already have a whole lot of other laws which cover that type of defacing of property and damage and which are very specifically in relation to public transport.

He might want to have a look at that and appreciate that we already have, firstly, laws to cover it; secondly, inspectors out there making sure it does not happen; and, thirdly, the capacity to prosecute when it does. He should not be at all concerned that this has been ignored in some way or is not already covered in another way.

The CHAIR: I have given you a chance to speak to all your amendments. If your first amendment fails, do you still want to go through each individual amendment?

Ms CHAPMAN: No.

The CHAIR: Shall we use the first amendment as a test?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, we can do that.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: As a general point, there was discussion about regulations and disallowance. I think that system can be improved, and I am working with parliamentary counsel on a proposal which, rather than just have the blanket disallowance provision, would have a system where each house could indicate to the minister that they wished a regulation to be changed, and the minister would have so many sitting days to respond. I do not want to spend too much time on it now, but I just point out that I think we can improve the system in terms of having not just a blanket disallowance but a more considered approach to regulation so that it is not all or nothing.

In terms of the licence suspension or the delay in getting P or L plates, I think members need to consider that we are talking about repeat offenders. We are not talking about little Johnny who does one silly act on someone's letterbox going home. The real effect of the threat of losing a licence or delaying the Ps or Ls for the younger person is that it would act as a very powerful deterrent. The magistrate could say, 'Listen, you come back in here a second or third time, you run the risk of losing your licence, or I can delay your Ps or your Ls.' That is a very powerful deterrent for repeat offenders.

I have said this before: we are not talking just about little kids. We are talking about people who are seasoned offenders, who drive around and who come from interstate. They come down here to vandalise. We have had people in the southern area who have come from different parts of the metropolitan area to vandalise. There is a connection, but in general we do not have a system in which the punishment has to be related directly in the same format to the offence. If someone bashes up grandma, we do not get the offender and say, 'We are going to belt the hell out of you because you belted up grandma.' We have to have like for like.

I do not see the logic of saying we can't punish someone by taking away their licence, or delaying their Ps or Ls, simply because they didn't use the car at that particular time; it is a punishment. We detain people in prison, where there is no direct association between being detained and the offence. The only example I can think of is in Yatala, where you have bars, and if you rob a bank, you might find a few bars there protecting the bank, but that is a pretty thin association.

I hope the opposition reconsiders this, because I think they have it wrong. My view is that the public will look at this in a very hostile way if there is any attempt to water down—and you could hear the reaction this morning on the radio—what has been a long time coming. This has been longer than an elephant's pregnancy; it has been a long time coming, and I do not think the public will take kindly if the opposition here and in another place was to try and water something down.

The example I gave about the licence—that concept was taken from other jurisdictions where they already do it, and all of this was considered in great detail. My staff and I researched jurisdictions around the world and in Australia, so this was no five-minute formulation, and the government, to its credit, picked up some of them. The government did not incorporate the example of businesses having to keep a register, and the police, and so on, and I accept that; I think that was borderline, because it could have imposed heavily on business.

I do not accept the argument from the opposition that this bill will impose a great burden on retailers. It is not going to affect the retailers who do the right thing, but there are a couple of businesses who I believe are on the borderline, and who make an income out of supplying this sort of material while knowing it will be handed down to minors as well. I just make those points, but I think in terms of licence suspension or the delayed provision of Ps or Ls is a very powerful deterrent for repeat offenders.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Because I have expressed my view about this pretty well before, I will just go very quickly. Can I just say; another good reason for these prescriptive matters not to be in the act but to be in the regs is that it enables us to go out and have a lengthy conversation with people like the hardware people, and to finetune that with them on an ongoing basis instead of bringing it back to parliament all the time; that is point number one.

Point number two is that the member for Bragg accused us of proposing a system which would wrap people up in red tape. It is not red tape that we have to worry about, it is tape measures. Everybody in a hardware store will have their Tally-Ho packet out, measuring things to see whether they are 15 millimetres wide—everybody—and if they do not have a Tally-Ho packet, they will have to have a ruler, checking every product.

Now, is that red tape, or is that not red tape? That is what the opposition has put in there. By the way, is it self-evident that a particular product is water soluble? I don't think so. Is it self-evident that a particular product can be removed using detergent?

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

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As I was saying; not red tape, but tape measures. Fifteen millimetres is not self-evident without the assistance of a tape measure, so every hardware store owner is going to be out there with their Tally-Ho packet or whatever, measuring up to see whether or not these things are across the line. This will then be followed by the next question: is it water soluble, and will it come off with detergent?

So, they then get out their magnifying glass and read the fine print on the product. So far, they have spent five minutes with the Tally-Ho packet, and now they have to get out the magnifying glass to check out the detail. They find sodium oxymoron, or whatever the ingredient is, and say, 'Gee, I wonder what that is.' They then get out the chemistry set, they go onto Google, they google 'sodium oxymoron'. What is it? Is it soluble in water? Is it affected by detergent? Still not clear. Right, into the kitchen, out with the Palmolive. A hand full of Palmolive and water, get working away on it. How long to do you have to work on it? Does it have to come off straightaway—if it eventually comes off?

The Hon. R.B. Such: Has it got enzymes in it?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes. What sort of detergent, because apparently they are not all the same. They are like oils. If anybody thinks that this simple so-called solution is a simple solution that gets rid of red tape, it does not do that at all. So, we respectfully oppose it.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 5 to 12 passed.

Clause 13.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

Page 6, lines 11 to 34 and page 7, lines 1 to 25 [clause 13, inserted sections 10A and 10B]—

Delete inserted sections 10A and 10B

Whilst other speakers, including me, have addressed the question of delaying probationary licence entitlements and/or disqualification of licence at some length, I wish to add some other matters, given the public statements that have been made today and in the response to the Attorney in his summing up. Here again, we have a demonstration of the difference between the government and the Liberal Party. I do not take for one moment the statements made on one radio station—whether it is 5AA, Mr Byner or anyone else—as being an accurate assessment or, indeed, disclosure of what the differences are. I appreciate that the fulsome aspects of this are not always disclosed in the course of a few minutes on a radio talkback program.

What is very clear, and I think everyone agrees, is that the public is furious about it, especially those who have been victims of graffiti, and they want something done about it. There is no question about that. The people who call into Mr Byner's program or any other like talkback program are very clear about that, and I think they represent the constituents who contact our electorate offices and convey that message. There is an absolute intolerance to this not only because of the wanton damage that is caused—especially in areas (which we have identified in previous legislation and again in this bill that aggravate it) like places of worship—but also when it is repeated. Unquestionably, it is seen as a symbol of disrespectful, disruptive and unacceptable behaviour by young people.

This is where the ignorance of the government comes through, even though they have had a desire to try to deal with this very issue. They have presented an argument saying, 'Let's take away from young people the one thing that they really want, that is, their licence.' This is something which they cherish and which they work for. They turn 16 (or whatever it is these days; it is still 16, I think) and they can get their probationary licence. It is a sign of graduation into the juvenile period of their life—and I do not mean that in a delinquent sense obviously. They are graduating into adulthood and they want to have a licence. It is cherished. So, the objective of the government—and I think it was very much the motivation, having read the speeches of the member for Fisher—is to hit kids where it hurts. That has some merit: there is no question about that. But here is the difference between them and us.

If we are going to use something that is precious to children which we are going to deprive them of as a deterrent for antisocial behaviour, where is this legislation when it comes to a 17 year old bashing up a child in a schoolyard who does not ever get his licence taken away? He is unlucky even to get caught in this jurisdiction, let alone have any penalty of losing his licence. Where is this deprivation of a licence when a child is involved in drug trafficking or drug use, or selling it to other kids in the schoolyard? Where is the withdrawal of this privilege as a means of dealing with illegal behaviour? It is nowhere near it.

So we start with the fundamental principle that, other than the usual course—a fine, imprisonment or community service—if you use housebreaking implements or use equipment for the purposes of making pills or to be able to carry out some enterprise of an illegal nature, there is a power of confiscation. That is in lots of our laws. But if we are going to move to a situation of punishing them by depriving them of a car, the only punishment I know of is clamping and impounding for hoon driving. That was used as a measure to deal with that.

Here, though, it seems to be exclusive to what I would have to say is the lower level of illegal conduct. We are going to use this area to withdraw that privilege. If you are going to use this as a new instrument of discipline for ill-behaved children, let's have it across the board and those who actually commit serious offences are given the same deprivation. Let us have that debate.

There is a second point, and this is the stark contrast between them and us. There are about 1.5 million people in South Australia. About one million of them live in the city—it is closer, I think, to 1.1 million—and all the rest of the population lives in regional South Australia. When the government considers these things and appreciates that the disqualification of a licence or the extension of a probationary period for children may affect their employment or their capacity to even undertake their normal family or community duties, it should understand this: there are thousands of children who actually live outside of Adelaide.

Why is that so important? It is important because if you withdraw a licence from a child living at Yunta or Ceduna, it clearly has a much more devastating effect on their capacity to work and interact with the community or even, as I say, to undertake their family responsibilities, than it does on a child living in Beaumont or Pooraka. The reason is quite simple: there is an alternative in metropolitan Adelaide. There are taxis and public transport services available.

Children here can have the penalty imposed and still have some other options. It may not be as convenient and it may be a bit irritating. They may have to go down early in the morning to catch a bus, train or some other service, or catch a lift with someone else going to work, but the reality is that children who live in regional South Australia in these circumstances are going to face a much more severe penalty.

This is, of course, not even on the wavelength of the government. They do not even have any consciousness of this. Their only member out in the country is our Speaker. A large part of her electorate would be affected by this but, of course, there are not many people living out there; but, Whyalla, which of course is in the centre of her electorate and comprises, I am sure, a very important part of her electorate, does have bus and taxi services.

I highlight to the house that when the government comes in with these ideas that sound great and on the face of it have some merit, we in the opposition have a responsibility to say, 'Let's be realistic about the effectiveness of it'—and we were persuaded by some of the research done by the member for Fisher—'If we are going to apply it let's have it across the board'; that is, across the board of offences that are not directly related to using a vehicle. Finally, 'Let's impose something that is not going to be a much more severe penalty for those children in the country.'

To give you some idea, if a 17 year old lives outside of a town with no public transport and no alternative transport, but who is some distance from work, that obviously affects their employment. Their social activity may be involvement in a local football club or social activity which they cannot get access to. They may live outside of a town in a family situation where they are also relied upon to transport other siblings, parents or relatives—workmen or others.

These are all things that are not even on the government's radar. It has no comprehension of the significance of the impact. We, on this side of politics, have to look at all South Australians. In this case, all of that cohort of children (not that there is a huge number of them) across South Australia. I do not suggest for one minute that you can have one rule for country children and one rule for city children, but these are the sorts of differences that need to be taken into account when we make final decisions that affect much more than just a recalcitrant, recidivist 17 year old who keeps doing texta drawings on the side of a public building. They are the sorts of things that we take seriously.

I appreciate that we still have an angry community out there. It is certainly seen as a symbol of disrespect when this sort of behaviour is carried out. I respect the member for Fisher's research on this, but let's be practical and understand that we have to have something that is uniform, universal and effective.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I can understand the member for Bragg's passion about this, but I draw her attention to the new sections 10A to 10C in the bill. It is headed, 'Court may'—it does not say 'must'—'Court may make orders in relation to driver's licences', so it is not a mandated penalty. It says, 'A court finding a person guilty of a prescribed graffiti offence that is not a first offence', so they cannot give this penalty to someone the first time up. It goes on further to say you must have a prior conviction for this sort of thing. If you are silly enough after being convicted of a graffiti offence to turn around and commit another graffiti offence, the magistrate can then take into account the suspension of your licence or a delay to your Ps or your Ls.

I understand why drivers and young people in the country need to be able to get around. One of the points that should also be made is that we have less graffiti in country areas, whether because the young people there are more usefully occupied doing other things, so I do not think the member for Bragg's fear is well-founded, because a magistrate would have enough sense to take into account the circumstances. That is why we have magistrates, not computers. We know they do not always get things right, but we have people who will take account of the circumstances and may make an order.

If it was mandated I think the member for Bragg would have a point, and if it was 'first time up you lose your licence' she would have an even more powerful argument. It is not mandated and it does not allow for a first offence to result in a disqualification or a delay. So I think the fears of the member for Bragg and members of the opposition are ill-founded and I do not think that young country people will be particularly disadvantaged. This, I am sure, will be applied by magistrates to the very hard core, systematic, serial offenders. We see their tags, more than just tags, there is 'vegan', there are all sorts of ID they use. We are talking about people who are not 15 year olds and 16 year olds. You might be surprised to know that a lot of these people are in their 30s. They are not little kids and they do get around town in cars. If they are silly enough to keep doing this sort of thing then a magistrate has the authority to take away their licence, and I think that is appropriate.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: We have covered some of this before. First of all, I agree entirely with what the honourable member for Fisher has just said. This is at the discretion of the court and, of course, in a rural district the magistrate would have regard to the repeat offender needing their car to be able to go to work. That goes without saying. So, I am sure that is adequately dealt with.

I do not know that I should be exploring this too much, but was the honourable member for Bragg inviting us to consider extending this motor vehicle forfeiture type arrangement to 17 year olds who bash other kids at school and 17 year olds who sell drugs to other kids at school, because if that is what they are asking us to do, please speak to us about it and we will consider their proposition, if that is what they are asking, because I am happy to be consistent, if that is what they want, very happy. In fact, the Hon. Stephen Wade said on the radio the other day that he did not think it was too bad that the Australian Crime Commission could compel people to answer questions, even if the answers tended to incriminate them. I asked him, 'Are you going to support measures like that in South Australia?' and he moved on to another topic.

Another issue, and there appears to be some confusion about this, is that this bill contains no extension or probation elements. It is simply: lose your licence. It is a pretty simple, very elementary tool. Getting back to the discussion the Hon. Stephen Wade had on the radio this morning, I thought I was listening to a variation on the Life of Brian theme, you know when the people's liberation army are arguing about doctrinal issues and one of them is upset because he cannot be called Loretta and things like that—it all got a bit silly; it got very silly. At the end of it though something good emerged from the program because the Hon. Mr Wade has now secured for himself a new sobriquet, courtesy of Mr Byner, which is Ferrero Rocher: soft in the middle. We may even refer to him henceforth as Ferrero, because it does sort of fit.

We do not agree with the proposition to remove this. We think the magistrate is a reasonable person to have the common sense to apply these things to repeat offenders only when it is necessary and appropriate to do so.

Ms CHAPMAN: Just before we proceed, for the record, I have just checked with the Attorney's adviser and it seems that the final draft is 2012. I have been reading from the 2011 bill, which we had had an assurance from the Attorney was the same as what was presented last year. I am not suggesting he was trying to mislead us in this regard, but it seems as though the issue of learner's permit and probationary licence has been removed from the current bill, so I will withdraw all reference to the learner's permit and probation. I would ask the Attorney that if things are different in those circumstances, it may seem to be fairly small, but we would like to at least have them identified.

Amendment negatived.

Ms CHAPMAN: I move:

Page 7, line 29 [clause 13, inserted section 10C(1)]—Delete 'reasonably suspects' and substitute:

suspects on reasonable grounds

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: Excellent. It seems that the Attorney has thrown himself on the mercy of the parliament and accepted this wise move to fix it up.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Can I say, Mr Chairman, that I am exhausted from the flaying I have received so far and that I tap the mat on this one. Can I correct the record again: the second reading explanation on this particular legislation on 29 February 2012 states, in the first and second paragraph, that 'certain concerns relating to these matters have been addressed in the bill now before the parliament'. So, it is actually in the second reading explanation that we—

Ms Chapman: You told us on the day that these were the same.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: On what day?

Ms Chapman: When you brought them back in, remember.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There was no intention to mislead and, if I did, I apologise. It was not intended to be tricky or anything. As I said, I yield.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (17:21): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.