Bills

Statutes Amendment (Attorney-General's Portfolio) Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 15.

The CHAIR: Do you have a question, deputy leader?

Ms CHAPMAN: Yes, a number. This clause proposes to allow for a class of persons to be exempt by the minister on the basis that there is a publication in the Gazette of this exemption. It follows on, Attorney, from the understanding I think you have, from what is identified in your second reading and from what was provided at the briefing, that the current provisions under the Summary Offences Act do not facilitate a class of persons, as distinct from an individual, from being able to display what is currently a prohibited weapon at a certain event or festival.

During the course of the briefing, I asked for some further information about the basis upon which this is sought. I have considered the provisions of part 3A relating to weapons under the Summary Offences Act and the list of exemptions in part 2 of the Summary Offences Act. In essence, what is clear is two things: one is that we have very strict rules in respect of prohibited weapons—who can have them, who can make them, in what circumstances they can be carried and who can sell them. The second one deals with a whole procedure which, if someone has demonstrated certain conduct, could be the subject of a weapons prohibition order and there is another threshold of obligations that they need to surmount to be able to use, have in their possession or deal with a weapon.

The schedule provides for a number of exemptions: obviously police, emergency services and persons using them in the course of their business or other reasons—religion, sports, ceremonies, museums. There is certain provision already under entertainment, in particular:

A person is an exempt person for the purposes of an offence of use or possession of a prohibited weapon under section 21F(1)(b) of this Act if the person uses or has possession of a prohibited weapon in the course of providing a lawful and recognised form of entertainment of other persons that reasonably requires the use or possession of the weapon.

One obviously can think of a play in a public place, etc. The Summary Offences Act carries really a whole regime of rules in respect of weapons, and some of them have been expanded upon, particularly in respect of knives in recent years, given some of the actions that have occurred and have had to be dealt with.

From the second reading, there may be a particular event or festival that could take place that would not cover a class of persons. I should also say that, in applying for an exemption, which is provided in the section 21F process, a person needs to obviously satisfy you, minister, that there is a necessity for them to have in their possession or use a weapon, and you have the power to set conditions. Notice has to be filed with you, with the appropriate fee, etc., to grant it. You effectively cannot progress that until you have consulted with the Commissioner of Police for the purposes of this act and this process. All of this, to be frank, is there for good reason.

When I asked for some further information about what events are currently being, I suppose, inconvenienced or excluded from being able to have the opportunity to display weapons, I was provided with correspondence signed by you which again just repeated that this temporary exemption was targeted towards the possession and use of prohibited weapons rather than the manufacture, sale, distribution or supply of prohibited weapons. However, that is not to say that an issue might not arise in the future when it may become necessary.

You repeated again the issue of the relation to a legitimate festival or event. Of course, my immediate response was: like what? Today I think you have given us the Battle of Hastings and the Eureka Stockade ideas that perhaps would be prejudiced in some way by not being able to do this. You also reported, and I quote—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: I have had concerned people come to me—

Ms CHAPMAN: I will ask you that in a minute. You also say that in the case of a one-off event, a temporary class exemption can be granted rather than having to issue exemptions to all individuals involved and that, where it appears as though there will be an ongoing event, a temporary exemption could be granted for the initial period of that event while an amendment to schedule 2 of the act is considered to provide a permanent class exemption. I can say to you that that gives me no extra information, to be honest, as to what on earth would justify this.

At present, if someone wants to display a gun in some Shakespearean play, they can have the exemptions that are already here. There are certain identified bodies who, during the course of the operation of their business, whether they are in a museum, an art gallery or whether they are collectors of heirlooms—I think the Freemasons get special provision, etc.; there are a whole lot of usual suspects, I suppose—that one can say have a legitimate reason to have an exemption.

Let us just start with this, because quite frankly, Attorney, telling us that somebody might miss out on having some parade for the celebration of the 1066 success is not really convincing to me, and neither is a display of some celebratory time of the Eureka Stockade. In fact, if it was going to be some parade or celebration of a war event, I would have to say that I would be even more concerned that some class of exemption would be provided to a class of persons rather than an individual.

Let's just start with this: who has applied to you since you have been Attorney, and have any of them been rejected? What inconvenience has been caused to any one of them that has in some way or another interrupted their parade or festival as a result of not having the amendments you are now asking for?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: To give you a very precise answer to that question I would need to take it away, and I am happy to do that and get back to you between the houses. The circumstances which initiated this were that a group of chaps came to see me, and they were very—

Ms Chapman: Not Morris dancers?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: They were not Morris dancers, no. They were not outrageous, apparently irresponsible people; they seemed to be people whose hobby was different from mine and obviously the member for Bragg's. Their hobby was dressing up in certain gear and parading about, and—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No. I am just telling the member for Bragg what they told me. They want to have an annual meet, as I was saying before, somewhere out Reynella way, where they have a fair day or something. They turn up with all this paraphernalia and go through whatever mock activities they go through, or they just march up and down looking like Colonel Klink or something. I do not know exactly, but—

Ms Chapman: Is this a dress-up party?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No. They were genuinely concerned that because some of the items they were using as props were, if you were carrying them around in public, a prohibited thing—

Ms Chapman: Like what?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, the one that springs to mind is bayonets.

Ms Chapman: Bathers?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Bayonets.

Ms Chapman: Real ones or just alfoil ones?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No, these were real ones. Actually, come to think of it, it might even have application to something like Fort Largs, for instance, where—

Ms Chapman: I bet they are already covered.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, they might be specifically covered, but that type of thing. I am sure the member for Bragg has been down there at some stage, where the chaps—

Ms Chapman: No, I can't say I have.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: The member for Bragg is missing out. I will get the itinerary. It is absolutely terrific; in fact, I might even come down there with the member for Bragg, if that would help encourage her—or perhaps it would not. There are a number of chaps who dress up in the attire of the South Australian Marine Corps or Army circa 1868 or something, with these lovely red jacket-type things, with belts and big boots and a pith helmet-type arrangement.

They march around inside Fort Largs and shout, 'Attention!' and all that sort of stuff, and they do the standing to salute, and they have these rifles. The rifles are Martini-Henry, or whatever was the fashionable thing in the 1860s, with a bayonet, and these chaps go through this rigmarole, and kids love it. You go there—

Ms Chapman: Are children there as well?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, they have children there; they do not actually injure the children. What they do partway through is select children to be part of the platoon—they do not use weapons or anything in that aspect of it—and the children get up and stand with them, and their parents take photos. They have a big cannon which blows out a noise and a puff of smoke, and it is all great. Kids love it—except for my son, who did not like it too much; he got a bit scared. In fact, come to think of it, the member for Bragg was actually there the last time I was there. There was an event, and I think the member for Bragg was there, if I remember correctly.

Ms Chapman: Isn't that under 'Ceremonies'?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: It might be. Even if that event is covered, there are other people who have these things as their hobby. These people are not dangerous, they are not criminals, they are not—

Ms Chapman: How do you know?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Well, because it they were dangerous I am sure the police would have weapons prohibition notices and various other things in respect of these people. I did ask the question. I think the answer is basically this: under the present legislation something needs to be required. If you went to the Great Moscow Circus and Marvello the Magnificent, who throws knives around the place, has—

Ms Chapman: He is covered under entertainment.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, he is covered, but it would be necessary for him because his whole entertainment is throwing knives.

The CHAIR: Marvelovic!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Marvelovic, correct. If the member for Bragg ever does go to one of those shows, the thing you have to watch out for is if they blindfold you and stick you up there with the balloons around you. The good news is that, because you are blindfolded, you do not realise they are not actually throwing them at you. It looks like they are going to throw them at you, but the clown who is standing behind the thing you are strapped to actually just comes up and goes 'pop'. It is nowhere near as scary as it seems.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: No. All I can say is that this is something that has been brought to me by these people. You could call it red tape. Between the houses, if it would be helpful, if I can track down who this group was, I would be happy to try to put them in touch with the member for Bragg so that they can explain from their own perspective what the problems are.

They were saying, 'We are fearful that we will be pinched for wandering around with these things,' which they acknowledge are not things that people should have in public in the normal course of events, but they are doing it in the context of a particular fair, event or whatever the case might be. I emphasise that I am not interested in having dangerous weapons out on the street any more than the member for Bragg is.

Ms CHAPMAN: So we have the historical re-enactors, as the member for Morialta has described them. Let's call them that. Apart from that, has any other group come to you to say, 'We can't get through the system at the moment and we can't get an exemption'?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I cannot say off the top of my head that I can think of any other definite application for this. It might be that circumstances throw up another occasion when this sort of thing might be appropriate. As I have said before to the house, this is a portfolio bill and it is intended to contain things which are not of themselves of such great urgency or moment that they warrant a standalone proposition; they are just miscellaneous things that come across the desk. I am sure I have records in the office of who these fellows were. It did seem to me that they were harmless enough and that they were providing some sort of fair-type atmosphere.

The CHAIR: A Viking re-enactment.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: A Viking re-enactment or whatever they were doing. It was in the nature of people who have these things turn up dressed in costumes and people come and look at them. That was the nature of the thing.

The CHAIR: A Harry Potter thing could end up with something offensive.

Ms CHAPMAN: I hear what the Attorney is saying and I welcome that. I am a little curious also to have some answers on this: when you say that it may be necessary to actually have an exemption for the manufacture, sale or distribution, not just possession or use, I have no idea what that could possibly relate to. Is that in the same category? Can you get some information as to what on earth that would be needed for?

If it is just an amateur group (and I say this respectfully) which has this desire to dress up then, given all the rules we have in respect of prohibited weapons, if these people are going to be in a public place, which is what we are talking about here—some sort of procession, Halloween-type activity or whatever, I do not know what time of the night they come out, whether they have alcohol present or what the deal is—let's assume they are an innocent group that likes to dress up in this re-enactment sort of concept.

Why would they not, unless they have all the strict rules that apply to general entertainment, just use fake pieces of equipment—swords or plastic guns with no bayonets on them or bayonets that are made of alfoil or whatever? I just make the point that it does not seem to me, on the face of it, an acceptable situation for any group, however innocent this particular group may have been in coming to you with their plight or potential problem, to have a relaxation which is so general as to go to a class of persons—that is, everyone who has paid their $2 to be a member of this group—

The Hon. J.R. Rau: On that day.

Ms CHAPMAN: —on that day or for that month, which is what we are talking up to here, to be able to carry out this activity. What happens when a group of undesirables work out that this is a way in which they can come along, or join the group that you have already identified as being a decent group of blokes who then are infiltrated by this other group?

It just seems to me that it is, on the face of it, too lax for no identified significant reason. I am not saying that this particular group are not genuine or decent people. I just make the point that you are not filling me with confidence as to why this is necessary when, really, we have a process which says, 'If you want to do something, you can come along to me, and I can check with the police commissioner and he or she can give me advice as to whether proper security is there or whether you are going to have a parade which does not involve alcohol, or you are going to have some other security there or nobody can flog the weapons.' These are all areas in which the police commissioner, who is particularly in charge of firearms but we are talking prohibited weapons here, has a job to do.

On our side of the house, we do not like red tape, we do not like difficulty, but we understand why we have a very strict regime in relation to weapons. We are just not satisfied at this point that the relaxation in this very general way should be allowed. Certainly, if it is allowed, it seems to me that it should be for one-off events—for a 24-hour period, for example—and for possession and display only, if we are talking about the type of thing you mentioned as an example, and certainly not for manufacture or sale, etc.

A number of the other exemptions in the schedule, if they become part of the schedule as distinct from the ministerial process in section 21F, also restrict a lot of this to possession and use. So, if it is just for entertainment purposes, you cannot get an exemption for the purpose of manufacturing or sale.

The Hon. J.R. Rau interjecting:

Ms CHAPMAN: You understand. I will leave it with you. I will give you an early minute, seeing you have been so helpful on this clause. I cannot consent to it but, apart from the preceding discussion we have had, the rest of the bill has merit and we will, of course, agree to its passage.

Clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Housing and Urban Development, Minister for Industrial Relations) (17:57): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

At 17:58 the house adjourned until Thursday 13 November 2014 at 10:30.