Summary Offences (Knives and Other Weapons) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Workforce and Population Strategy) (16:29): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am proud to introduce the Summary Offences (Knives and Other Weapons) Amendment Bill 2025 into this chamber of parliament. The safety of the community is a top priority for this Labor government. South Australia has long had strong knife laws, particularly following reforms implemented by the Rann and Weatherill Labor governments. However, this government is committed to ensuring our laws remain up to date and effective. This bill represents the government's unreserved commitment to tackling knife and weapons-related crime in our community.

The introduction of the bill follows the release of a public discussion paper to examine how existing knife laws in South Australia might be strengthened. This public consultation received significant engagement with over 100 YourSAy survey responses and 36 written submissions. The government has worked particularly closely with South Australia Police to design laws that are not only strong but which can be used effectively by police officers on the ground. The result of this extensive work is a package of reforms that will make our community safer and, unlike the Tarzia-led opposition, we are not content to simply take one small measure and call it a day. We know that a holistic package is needed if we are to have confidence in our laws remaining effective.

South Australia's criminal law already contains a range of offences and penalties relating to knives. This bill builds on that strong foundation and has been developed in reliance, both on the substantial public feedback from the discussion paper and through extensive consultation with South Australia Police.

The bill reforms knife laws in South Australia in several key ways. It will expand the ability of a police officer to scan people for weapons by using electronic metal detectors:

at declared public transport hubs, public transport vehicles and shopping precincts;

at places of worship;

at any place where there is a likelihood of violence or disorder involving weapons; and

at any time on a person in a public place if the person has, in the past five years, been convicted of certain offences or has been a member of a declared criminal organisation.

The bill will amend existing search powers to allow a police officer to detain and search a person who the police suspect, on reasonable grounds, is a person to whom a weapons prohibition order applies.

This bill will allow police officers, by written notice, to request that a person leave certain areas if the police officer apprehends or believes on reasonable grounds that the presence of the person poses a risk to public order and safety, or that an offence of a kind that may pose a risk to public order and safety has been, or is about to be, committed by that person.

The bill will also create a new offence for a person to remain in the area after having been ordered to leave an area or vehicle if they attempt to re-enter the area or vehicle in the 24-hour period after being served the order. The bill will also allow police officers to use necessary and reasonable force to remove the person from an area or vehicle if they have been ordered to leave and fail to do so or re-enter the area or vehicle.

The bill will create two new offences which make it unlawful to supply a knife to a minor, knowing or having ought reasonably to have known that the minor will use the knife in the commission of an offence. It will ban the sale of knives to all minors, including those aged 16 and 17 with no exemptions. It will require that certain types of knives are subject to storage requirements at retail premises. It will require that prohibition notices are displayed at retail premises. It will make amendments in anticipation of prescribing swords as a prohibited weapon by regulation, meaning that they will be subject to more strict laws around their use and possession.

Also in anticipation of the more strict prescription of machetes as prohibited weapons, again to be done by regulation, the bill will create an exemption to the prohibited weapons offences for gardening and camping purposes, which will apply only to machetes.

Finally, the bill will also expand the operation of offences relating to possession, carriage and use of weapons in schools to apply to 'educational facilities' which are defined to include a childcare centre, a preschool or kindergarten, a primary or secondary school, a place at which an approved learning program is undertaken within the meaning of the Education and Children's Services Act 2019, and a university, TAFE campus or other tertiary education facility. The offences relating to possession, carriage and use of weapons in schools will also be expanded to apply to places of worship.

The search powers in the bill will come into operation on the day on which the bill is assented to by, or on behalf of, the Crown. The balance of the clauses in the bill, being clauses 3 to 7 and clause 11, will come into operation on the day to be fixed by proclamation to allow retailers sufficient time to implement the changes that may be needed to ensure compliance with those measures in the bill. I will now outline each of the measures in the bill in further detail.

Metal detector police search powers: the new metal detector police search powers proposed in this bill require the repealing of sections 72A, 72B and 72C of the Summary Offences Act 1953 that deal with metal detector and weapons searches where the substance of these current provisions, as well as several new metal detector search powers, will be contained within a new part 14C.

It will be an offence to hinder or obstruct a police officer or a person accompanying a police officer in the exercise of powers conferred under part 14C of the bill. It will also be an offence to refuse or fail to comply with a requirement made or a direction given under part 14C. The maximum penalty for each of these offences is $2,500 or imprisonment for six months.

While this offence already exists in the Summary Offences Act, the bill will expand on the offence to apply to the exercise of the new search powers introduced by these reforms. The searches conducted under the new part 14C must be by the metal detector in the first instance, other than searches relating to anticipated incidents of serious violence between a group or groups of people.

If metal is detected, the police officer may require the person to produce the items detected. If the person refuses or fails to produce any such item, the police officer will be able to conduct a search in relation to the person or property for the purpose of identifying the item as if it were a search conducted under current laws on a person reasonably suspected of being in possession of an item contrary to law.

This is a well-established process under the Summary Offences Act, and the bill expands on its operation to more public areas to better protect our community from violence. The various reporting obligations contained in the current section 72A(7) and 72B(9) of the Summary Offences Act have been replicated in the bill and several additional reporting obligations have been included to reflect the new powers in the bill. The various safeguards contained in section 72C have also been replicated in the bill.

Special measures to prevent serious violence: existing section 72B allows for the search of persons on authorisation of an officer of or above the rank of superintendent where there is or may be an incident of serious violence involving a group or groups of people. For ease of reference in the Summary Offences Act, this section will be repealed and reproduced in new part 14C of the bill. While there are minor changes to update the language and layout of the provision, the substance and effect will remain the same.

Metal detector searches for the deterrence of violence or disorder in public places: under the government's proposed bill, the Commissioner of Police will be able to authorise the use of search powers, which must be a metal detector search in the first instance in relation to a specified public place, if there are reasonable grounds to believe that an incident of violence or disorder may take place in the area and that the exercise of the powers is reasonably necessary to prevent the incident.

The authorisation will be limited to a period of no more than six hours and must be by written instrument unless the commissioner is satisfied that circumstances of urgency exist, in which case the authorisation may be oral, provided that it is reduced to writing as soon as reasonably practical. Where the authorisation is made in relation to a specified public place, police officers would be empowered to conduct searches of any person who is in or who is apparently attempting to enter or leave the place, and any property in possession of such a person for the purposes of detecting the commission of an offence against part 3A of the Summary Offences Act.

Power to conduct metal detector searches of certain persons: under this bill, police officers will be authorised to conduct a search, which must be a metal detector search in the first instance, of any person who has, within the five years immediately preceding the relevant time, been found guilty of an offence prescribed by regulation or has been a member of a criminal organisation for the purpose of detecting the commission of an offence against existing part 3A of the Summary Offences Act. A police officer will be authorised to conduct a metal detector search of a person who meets these criteria and who is in or is apparently attempting to enter or leave a public place.

Before carrying out the search, the police officer must provide the person to be searched with information including the grounds for a search, and the explanation for the effect of hindering or obstructing a police officer, or refusing or failing to comply with a requirement made of the person, including the penalty for doing so. If the person to be searched so requests, the identification number of the police officer must also be provided.

Power to conduct metal detector searches at certain events and places: this bill would also give new powers to police to conduct searches, again via metal detector search in the first instance, for the purpose of detecting the commission of an offence against existing part 3A of the Summary Offences Act of any person who is in or apparently attempting to leave the following places:

licensed premises;

a place of worship;

a public place holding a declared public event;

a declared shopping precinct;

a declared public transport hub;

a car parking area specifically or primarily provided for the use of patrons and customers of an area referred to in a preceding paragraph; or

a public transport vehicle providing a declared public transport service.

With respect to licensed premises, the bill reflects the existing powers within section 72A(3)(a) of the Summary Offences Act; however, the definition of licensed premises will be expanded.

Licensed premises are currently defined in the Summary Offences Act to include the premises defined in the casino licence under the Casino Act 1997, premises subject to a licence prescribed by regulation, and premises in respect of which one of the following classes of licence is in force under the Liquor Licensing Act 1997:

a general and hotel licence;

an on-premises licence;

a restaurant and catering licence;

a club licence; or

a licence of a class prescribed by regulation other than premises, or premises of a class, declared by the regulations to be excluded.

The current definition of licensed premises does not permit police officers to conduct metal detector searches in many of the licensed premises within which it is an offence to carry an offensive weapon pursuant to section 21C(3) of the Summary Offences Act; for example, those with short-term licences and small-venue licences. Therefore the definition of 'licensed premises' for the purposes of metal detection searches will be expanded by this bill to include all premises within the meaning of the Liquor Licensing Act, other than any that are excluded by regulation.

The police commissioner's existing powers to declare community, cultural, arts, entertainment, recreational, sporting and other similar events occurring in a public place for the purpose of metal detector searches for weapons under section 72A(3)(b) of the Summary Offences Act will remain. However, currently a declaration in respect of a public event must specify that the declaration operates during the period for which the event is held. This means the police are not currently permitted to conduct searches prior to the event time.

The bill has rectified this, so that the declaration must specify the period during which the declaration is in force being a period commencing no earlier than the start of the day on which the event starts, and ending no later than the day on which the event ends. The commissioner will also be empowered through these reforms to declare shopping precincts, public transport hubs and public transport services for the purposes of metal detector searches for weapons so that additional criteria must be satisfied before a declaration may be made.

Before declaring a shopping precinct, public transport hub or public transport vehicle, the commissioner must be satisfied:

that the exercise of the search powers is necessary or appropriate for the purposes of deterring or detecting the commission of offences involving the possession or use of a knife or other weapons in the shopping precinct or public transport hub;

that the exercise of the search powers is likely to be effective in detecting or deterring the commission of offences involving the use of a knife or other weapons in the shopping precinct or public transport hub; and

that the exercise of the search powers will not unduly affect lawful activity in the area.

Additionally, where a shopping precinct or public transport hub has previously been the subject of a declaration, the commissioner will be required to have regard to whether searches carried out previously identified persons carrying knives or other weapons. Declarations of shopping precincts, public transport hubs and public transport services will be in effect until revoked by the police commissioner. The commissioner must revoke a declaration if they are no longer satisfied of the criteria.

The commissioner will be required to publish declarations on the commissioner's website before the commencement of the period during which the declaration will operate. A police officer will be required, if reasonably practicable in the circumstances, to notify a person prescribed in the regulations of the terms of the declaration and the intent to search persons during the specified times or during the specified period for which the declaration is in force. A police officer need only notify the prescribed person once in relation to each declaration, and failure to notify will not invalidate the exercise of the powers.

Weapons prohibition order search powers: the Summary Offences Act currently provides that a police officer may detain and search a person to whom a weapons prohibition order applies as reasonably required for the purposes of ensuring compliance with a weapons prohibition order. The existing search provision will be amended to allow a police officer to detain and search a person or who the police officer suspects on reasonable grounds is a person to whom a weapons prohibition applies.

Request to leave certain areas or vehicles: the bill will give police additional powers similar to those that apply in declared public precincts that would allow police to order a person or persons in a group to leave a declared area or vehicle in certain circumstances. An order may be made if a police officer believes or apprehends on reasonable grounds that an offence posing a risk to public order and safety has been or is about to be committed or if the person or group of persons poses a risk to public order and safety.

The order must be by notice in writing and served on the person personally and must specify the area to which the order relates or, if the order relates to a public transport vehicle, the public transport service which the vehicle is providing. The order is operational for 24 hours. The bill also makes it an offence for a person having been ordered to leave an area or vehicle to remain in the area or vehicle after having been so ordered or to re-enter or attempt to re-enter the area or vehicle within a 24-hour period commencing at the time the order was served on the person. The maximum penalty for this offence will be a $1,250 fine.

If the person fails to leave an area or vehicle when ordered to or re-enters an area or vehicle within the period specified in the written notice, a police officer will be empowered to use necessary and reasonable force to remove the person from the area or vehicle.

Unlawful supply of knives to minors: this bill will also create a new offence to supply a bill to a minor if the supplier knew or ought reasonably to have known that the minor intended or was likely to use the knife in the commission of an offence. There is no requirement that the minor actually use the knife in the commission of an offence.

There will be two tiers of the new supply offences, dependent on the type of offence that the supplier is alleged to have known or ought reasonably to have known that the minor intended or was likely to commit using the knife. For the new top tier offence, the supplier must have known, or ought reasonably to have known, that the minor to whom they supplied the knife intended or was likely to commit a serious offence of violence. A serious offence of violence will include various offences within the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 in which harm, serious harm or death is caused to a victim.

For the new lower tier offence, the supplier must have known, or ought reasonably to have known, that the minor to whom they supplied the knife intended or was likely to commit an offence against section 21E of the Summary Offences Act, being possession of a knife in a public place or education facility. The maximum penalty for the new top tier supply offence is four years' imprisonment or a fine of $35,000. The maximum penalty for the lower tier supply offence would be six months' imprisonment or a fine of $10,000.

Sale of knives to minors under the age of 18: currently under section 21D(1) of the Summary Offences Act, it is unlawful for a person to sell a knife to a minor under the age of 16. Section 21D(1) will be amended to raise the age at which a person can lawfully purchase a knife to 18 years old, making it unlawful for a person to sell a knife to a minor under 18. The existing defence which applies to section 21D(1) will be amended to reflect this change.

There will be no exceptions for minors under 18 to purchase a knife, even for the purposes of their education, training and employment, and they will need to rely on guardians, employers or training providers to supply knives to them if required for these legitimate purposes. It is worth pointing out that certain knives are already exempt from current section 21D(1) by the regulations, including razor blades permanently enclosed in a cartridge and plastic or wooden knives used for, or intended to be disposed of after, eating.

This new proposed defence to raise the age of sale for knives with no exceptions is an unapologetically strong new measure by this government to protect our community from knife crime. Consultation with the retail sector made it clear that exemptions to the prohibition on selling knives to minors, even if well intended, would create confusion for retail staff. It is our view that a ban with no exemptions is the only way to ensure knives are not able to be purchased by minors.

Certain knives to be kept secured in retail premises: under the proposed reforms, a person selling knives from retail premises will be required to ensure that any prescribed knives stored in a part of the retail premises to which the members of the public are permitted access are either kept in a securely locked cabinet or container, securely tethered, or secured in any other manner prescribed by the regulations such that members of the public are not able to gain access to the knives without the assistance of the person or an agent or employee of that person.

The maximum penalty for the new offence will be $10,000 and may also be expiated upon payment of a $1,000 fine. The new offence will not apply during an inspection of a prescribed knife by a prospective purchaser. As with the prohibition of sale notice requirements, retail premises will include a market stall, a temporary pop-up shop or any other premises or place, or premises or place of a class prescribed by the regulations. The types of knives that will be required to be stored securely will be determined through regulations.

Display of notices in the sale of knives: under this bill, it will also be an offence to sell knives from retail premises unless a prohibition notice is displayed regarding age of sale of knives and other information related to the lawful sale and use of knives. This notice must be displayed in a manner likely to be seen by customers at each point of sale in the retail premises, or at each area in the retail premises in which knives are displayed for sale. The maximum penalty for this new offence will be $10,000. This offence may also be expiated upon payment of a $1,000 fee. A retail premises will include market stalls, temporary or pop-up shops, or any other premises or place prescribed by the regulations.

This bill will also create an offence to sell knives by direct sales transaction, being a transaction in which the knife is to be delivered to or picked up from an address in the state. This is unless, in the case of a direct sales transaction taking place over the internet or using a website, the information prescribed by the regulations is published on the website through which the transaction occurred or, in any other case, the information prescribed by the regulations is given to the purchaser in accordance with any requirements set out in the regulations. The maximum penalty for this new offence will be $10,000 and again this offence may be expiated upon payment of $1,000 fee.

It will be a defence to the direct sales offence to prove that the defendant did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to have known, that the knife was to be delivered or picked up from an address in this state. The direct sales offence will ensure that bricks-and-mortar retailers are not unfairly disadvantaged by the provisions and avoid potential displacement issues, such as minors turning to purchasing knives online due to the increased barriers to purchasing knives from bricks-and-mortar retailers and the increased likelihood of their conduct going undetected by police.

The prohibition notice must contain the information set out in the regulations, which will relate to the age requirements for the sale of knives to minors and must be displayed in accordance with the requirements set out in the regulations, including its required size and form.

Removal of reference to swords from the definition of 'offensive weapon': the reference to a sword in the definition of offensive weapon in existing section 21A of the Summary Offences Act will be removed to prepare for the addition of swords and machetes to the list of prohibited weapons in the Summary Offences Regulations 2016. This is a technical change in anticipation of a change to the regulations requested by South Australia Police.

The removal of the reference to swords in the definition will in no way reduce the powers and safety around how swords are dealt with, and will in fact increase the level of seriousness in which swords are ultimately regarded. Section 21A(1) contains a definition of an offensive weapon, which includes a non-exhaustive list of items that are included in the definition. Swords are included in that non-exhaustive list.

This amendment simply removes the reference to swords for consistency and clarity when the regulations are made. Once swords have been prescribed as prohibited weapons by the regulations, it will be an offence to possess them without an exemption. The necessary changes to the regulations to consider swords and machetes as prohibited weapons will occur at the same time as the commencement of this corresponding legislative amendment.

New category of prohibited weapons exemption for machetes: it is intended that machetes and swords will be prescribed to be prohibited weapons by regulation. In anticipation of this change, there will be an exemption for gardening and camping purposes in the schedule of exemptions to the offence of manufacturing, selling, distributing, supplying or otherwise dealing in prohibited weapons. As previously mentioned, the exemption will apply only to machetes. Again, this legislative amendment will commence at the same time as the corresponding regulations.

Education facilities and places of worship: finally, current section 21C(7) of the Summary Offences Act will be amended to make it an offence to without lawful excuse use or carry an offensive weapon that is visible in the presence of any person in an education facility, a place of worship or a public place in a manner that would be likely to cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for their personal safety. Similarly, section 21E will be amended to make it an offence for a person to, without lawful excuse, have possession of a knife in an education facility, a place of worship or a public place.

Previously, the offences within sections 21C(7) and 21E of the Summary Offences Act were limited to schools, as defined to primary and secondary schools. An education facility will be broadened and now defined to include a childcare centre, preschool or kindergarten; a primary or secondary school; a place at which an approved learning program within the meaning of the Education and Children's Services Act 2019 is undertaken; and a university, TAFE SA campus, or other tertiary education facility.

These amendments will not affect those persons who legitimately need to carry, possess or use knives in these locations for a legitimate purpose which constitutes a lawful excuse—for knives that are offensive weapons—or where the person is exempt pursuant to schedule 2 of the Summary Offences Act for knives that are prohibited weapons.

I am very proud of the government's strength of action in bringing this comprehensive knife crime reform package to this place. This has been a significant piece of work informed by significant public consultation and close workings with SAPOL and the Commissioner of Police. This government is committed to ensuring public safety and this bill is testament to that, containing a comprehensive suite of amendments targeting both prevention and law enforcement to ensure the safety of South Australians against knife crime. I commend the bill to members and seek leave to insert the explanation of clauses into Hansard without my reading it.

Leave granted.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

2—Commencement

These clauses are formal.

Part 2—Amendment of Summary Offences Act 1953

3—Amendment of section 21A—Interpretation

This clause amends section 21A of the Act to insert definitions of terms used in the measure, and deletes swords from the definition of offensive weapon.

4—Amendment of section 21C—Offensive weapons and dangerous articles etc

This clause consequentially amends section 21C of the Act following the insertion of the term 'education facility' to replace 'school'. It also makes it an offence to use or carry an offensive weapon at a place of worship without lawful excuse.

5—Amendment of section 21D—Unlawful selling or marketing of knives

This clause amends section 21D of the Act to raise the age at which a person can lawfully buy a knife to 18.

6—Insertion of sections 21DA, 21DB and 21DC

This clause inserts new sections 21DA, 21DB and 21DC as follows:

21DA—Supplying knives to minors that are used in offence

This section creates 2 new offences committed where a person supplies a knife to a minor if they knew, or ought to have known, that the minor would intended or was likely to use the knife in the commission of a serious offence of violence as defined, or an offence against section 21E.

21DB—Certain notices to be displayed where retail sale of knives

This section requires sellers of knives to display certain notices in retail premises.

21DC—Certain knives to be kept secured in retail premises

This section requires retail sellers of knives to keep certain kinds of knives secured in parts of premises to which members of the public have access.

7—Amendment of section 21E—Knives in schools and public places

This clause consequentially amends section 21E of the Act following the insertion of the term 'education facility' to replace 'school'. It also makes it an offence to possess a knife at a place of worship without lawful excuse.

8—Amendment of section 21L—Power to search for prohibited weapons

This clause substitutes a new paragraph (a) into section 21L(2), clarifying that a police officer need only suspect on reasonable grounds that a person is a person to whom a weapons prohibition order issued by the Commissioner applies in order to search them for prohibited weapons.

9—Insertion of Part 14C

This clause inserts new Part 14C into the Act, providing for a series of powers to be conferred on police officers to conduct metal detection and other searches in the circumstances set out in the Part.

Procedural provision is made for declarations triggering the places in which searches can occur, how notice of proposed searches is to be given and how searches are to be undertaken.

A power to order a person to leave an area declared under the Part is also provided for.

10—Repeal of sections 72A, 72B and 72C

This clause repeals sections 72A, 72B and 72C of the Act, those sections now being subsumed into new Part 14C.

11—Amendment of Schedule 2—Exempt persons—prohibited weapons

This clause inserts new clause 25 into Schedule 2, providing exemptions for the use of machetes (which are to be declared to be prohibited weapons by regulation) for gardening or camping purposes.

Mr BATTY (Bragg) (16:56): I rise and indicate that I will be the lead speaker for the opposition on this bill. The opposition will be supporting this bill. We will be supporting it, of course, because much of what we find in this bill was our own idea that we presented to the public months ago and, indeed, presented to this parliament months ago. We have been calling for all of it for quite some time, for this government to get on with knife crime law reform.

We are very pleased to finally see this bill now before the house, after what has been effectively three years of inaction when it comes to law and order and knife crime law reform from the Malinauskas Labor government. Throughout that three years of inaction, what we have also very sadly seen is crime on the rise, and particularly knife crime on the rise, across South Australia. Indeed, just last year while we were waiting for these much-promised tough new laws to come into place, we saw knife crime increase by 15 per cent across the state.

For every week that we have waited for this bill, on average 80 knife crimes were committed in South Australia. Indeed, for every week that it appears we are now going to have to wait to see the regulations and actually have the bulk of this bill commence, on average 80 knife crimes will be committed across South Australia. I am not just nitpicking when I say this has been in the go-slow lane; this has a real impact. Behind each of those statistics is a victim, and that is at the heart of what we do here: trying to protect those victims, trying to see fewer victims and trying to keep South Australians safe. While we have been waiting for this bill we have seen a 15 per cent increase in knife crime and we have failed in that duty to keep South Australians safe.

The government has really had no excuse not to introduce this bill sooner and not to get on with knife crime law reform sooner. We have seen so many horrific examples across the state of crime on the rise, but in particular knife crime. I have spoken about a few of them in this parliament before. Mid last year we saw a whole spate of fairly horrific and violent attacks, many involving knives and many involving children, concerningly.

Whether it was at Marion on 23 June where we saw three youths arrested—two of whom were 15 and one was 16—and charged variously with assault, affray and aggravated robbery. Their two expandable batons were seized and the shopping centre was put into lockdown and evacuated—absolutely terrifying for the people trying to go about their shopping in Marion on 23 June.

Where were the government's tough new laws on 23 June at Marion? Or where were they in Arndale on 25 June when we saw six youths arrested for threatening a man? Four of them were 14-year-old children, one of them was a 13 year old, another was 15 and two of them were found carrying knives. Where were the government's tough new laws on knife crime on 25 June at Arndale?

Or Elizabeth? On Friday, 9 August outside the courts a group of teens were arrested for a brawl outside the Magistrates Court. They were aged just 17, 16 and 15 and one of those youths was allegedly wielding a machete. Where were the government's tough new laws on knife crime at Elizabeth in August of last year?

Or at Elizabeth in October last year, when we saw three teens arrested aged 17, 16 and 14 and an 18 year old stabbed and taken to hospital and a large knife with blood was found in a recycling bin at the Elizabeth shopping centre? We had a situation in October last year at the Elizabeth shopping centre where it looks like kids are going around stabbing other kids and total inaction still from this government.

There has also been no excuse not to do this sooner because most of the ideas that have finally found their way into this legislative reform we have known about for quite some time. It was in July 2024 that a discussion paper was first released by the government, which outlined nearly all of the ideas that have now found themselves in this bill. Basically, we are legislating today all of the ideas that were in that discussion paper. That was eight months ago. Why have we waited eight months when we have been in a circumstance where on average 80 knife crimes are committed every week across the state before we have finally acted?

Or in August 2024, when the comprehensive consultation concluded? That was seven months ago. Why did we not act seven months ago in a context where on average 80 knife crimes are committed every single week across the state? Or in October 2024, now over four months ago, when the knife crime crisis got so bad and the inaction from this government became so stark that the opposition was forced to act in this parliament and introduce its own bill in an attempt to fix the knife crime crisis and make our community safer? That was four months ago and has not found any support from those opposite. Indeed, a lot of what we are legislating today was in that deal four months ago. Instead, we have had to endure another four months of Labor's weak knife crime laws and inaction from those opposite before we finally now get to debate this bill before the house.

Or in November 2024? Three months ago, the opposition called for the machete to be listed as a prohibited weapon. Why did the government not think to act then when the opposition sounded the alarm on the machete crisis and the fact that the machete had seemingly become a weapon of choice for youth criminals and criminals more broadly? But no action. This could have been done with the stroke of a pen by the Attorney-General, listing the machete as a prohibited weapon.

We now have the minister in here today promising to do that at some point in the future still. We still have not listed the machete as a prohibited weapon. Again, you do not have to take me begging for it, look at the victims on the streets in our suburbs. In Rundle Mall, in broad daylight on 31 October 2024, we saw a terrifying machete attack that saw the arrest of teens aged 14, 15 and 17. On 9 October 2024, at Gulfview Heights, there was a home invasion by a gang with machetes that left two needing surgery.

In Kilburn on 29 September 2024, we saw a gang of up to 15 machete-wielding thugs who reportedly went on a rampage through a property in Kilburn. At Eyre, there was another home invasion on 27 September 2024. There were three people armed with machetes and that attack saw a teenager slashed across his forehead, but none of this was enough for the Attorney-General to step up and actually list the machete as a prohibited weapon. It took the opposition to call for it, and those calls were ignored; indeed, I think they were mocked at the time by those opposite. A spokesman for the Attorney-General was quoted in The Advertiser newspaper describing the ban as:

…unnecessary because existing laws already outlawed machetes in public places.

The spokesperson went on rather politically to say:

Last week the Liberals came out with a policy that we've already announced, this week they want to outlaw something that is already a crime…

Well, here we are, three months later, and they are doing the very thing that we told them to do three months ago. Again they mocked us for it and now they are here doing it because I have finally woken up to the fact that we have a knife crime crisis in South Australia. They have finally woken up to the fact that the machete has become a weapon of choice for dangerous criminals. Why did we not act three months ago? Indeed, after we called for the machete to be listed as a prohibited weapon, merely weeks later, we saw another machete fight in Rundle Mall, which was captured on CCTV, and we have seen it on our televisions a lot ever since. I just do not understand why there has been a total reluctance to prioritise law and order from the Malinauskas Labor government, even in the face of really startling examples of knife crime, of machete crime. It is really not good enough.

As I said, the situation got so bad that the Liberal opposition had to lead the way and introduce our own laws, which we did a few months ago. The government has never supported those laws and instead we have had to endure another summer of fear, another summer with Labor's weak knife crime laws. What have we seen since then? We have seen the 1 November machete fight in Rundle Mall, we have seen the 1 November incident at Yorktown Hospital involving a knife-wielding female patient, and on 15 December a knife-wielding man was arrested at a Woolworths in Goolwa. There are real consequences of the government's failure to act. We have been trying to sound the alarm on this. We have been trying to help. We could have legislated this at the end of last year, but we had absolutely no cooperation or interest from the government in engaging in any knife crime law reform for the past few months.

As recently as last month, about four weeks ago, we were out again calling for these very laws that we are debating today to be fast-tracked. We held a press conference calling for these laws to be fast-tracked. It is only after that press conference that we finally now see a government acting and this bill before the house and, seemingly, we still have to wait for many more days, weeks, months, years—I do not know—before we can see the regulations and have the bulk of this legislation commence. If it has not been bad enough that Labor has dragged their feet for last three years when it comes to knife crime law reform, what are they going to do for the next few months? Where are the regulations? Why can we not legislate it today, get started and have the bulk of this bill take effect to keep South Australians safe?

One of the reforms this bill seeks to make is in clause 5 of the bill, which is to essentially ban children being able to buy knives. This clause was of course the subject of a bill introduced by the Liberal opposition some months ago. Now it has not found support from the government. Curiously, the government seems to take great pride in the fact that there are no exemptions to this clause in the current bill we are debating. They like to draw a comparison that in the bill that the opposition introduced there were some pretty reasonable exceptions, including to allow a 17 year old to pursue, for example, their legitimate profession or education. The example that was often quoted at the time was that of a 17-year-old apprentice butcher who might need a knife to go about his education and training, and indeed his work, and in those circumstances it would be a legitimate reason to be able to buy a knife.

That has been removed from this bill, which is curious, given that on 29 October 2024—you might remember, sir, that is when we introduced our bill on this very topic and could have passed it on that day and been safer for the last few months—the day that the opposition introduced its bill and led the way on knife crime law reform, the Attorney-General went on radio, before reading our bill, to criticise it. His main criticism was the fact that maybe we had not thought about exemptions—there might not be exemptions in the bill.

He was asked about whether he would back Vincent Tarzia's bill. He did not answer that question, but of course we all know the answer now. He has refused to back it for the last three months. In response he said, 'Rushing into something that raises the age probably doesn't take into account things like apprentice chefs, who actually need that and need to be able to buy a knife for their work.'

When we introduce a bill with reasonable exemptions, he criticises us because he has not read it, and says, 'Hey, you have forgotten to have exemptions,' and then three months down the track we are here, and he has done the very thing that he accused us of not doing. It is just totally bizarre behaviour from the Attorney. I do not know what changed in the last three months. Again, I do not know why he could not have just supported our bill. If he did not think it was strong enough, he could have amended it then.

That was not the only exemption in our bill—legitimate education and professional purposes. There also was one that I think I styled as a 'culinary exemption'. The situation we now find ourselves in is, seemingly in an effort to sufficiently differentiate his bill from my bill and to make him look even tougher on crime, the Attorney-General might have unwittingly banned children from being able to buy a knife to eat their dinner. Under the laws that were passed today, a 17 year old cannot go out and buy a knife and fork to eat their steak and chips. I do not know what this is going to mean for table manners, but I also think we have ended up in a really bizarre situation. I think it is out of a sense of pride almost from the Attorney, trying to differentiate his bill from our bill, that we have ended up in a fairly unusual situation where 17 year olds are not allowed to butter bread anymore under the Attorney's tough new laws, but here we are nevertheless.

This bill does introduce a number of other measures as well, many of which we have been calling for for quite some time, nearly all of which find themselves in the discussion paper I mentioned earlier, titled 'Tackling knife crime in South Australia'. We see ideas like the safe storage of knives and certain display obligations in clause 6 of this bill. That is directly lifted from page 15 of the discussion paper that was released eight months ago. We see an expanded definition of a school in clause 2 of this bill. Again, that is directly lifted from page 17 of a discussion paper that was released eight months ago.

We see a variety of new search powers in the bill. It is sort of half the bill, which is basically new part 14C of the bill. Again, it was directly lifted and canvassed in page 10 of a discussion paper that was released eight months ago. We also see the foreshadowing of listing the machete as a prohibited weapon in clause 11. That was not in the discussion paper, but of course you would recall the Leader of the Opposition's press release from 3 November 24, where we called for this very thing. That press release said, and I quote:

The Summary Offences Act allows the Attorney-General to declare certain weapons 'prohibited'. Currently weapons such as bayonets, flick-knives and nunchakus are prohibited but not machetes.

He then went on to make the case for the Attorney, with a stroke of a pen, making the machete a prohibited weapon, which of course makes it illegal to manufacture, sell, possess or supply. I do not think that was in the discussion paper. It might have been, but it was certainly something that we were calling for some three months ago now.

Basically, all of the ideas in this bill are either lifted from the discussion paper released eight months ago or lifted from suggestions and policy ideas from the Liberal opposition. Despite this, I do not understand why it has taken eight months to end up here. That consultation, that discussion paper, closed seven months ago. We haven't actually ever seen a final report of that consultation process. The submissions of that consultation were never made public, but here we are, eight months down the track, with finally this government waking up to something that most South Australians have known about for the last three years and the Liberal opposition have been shouting from the rooftops about for the last three years.

I think it is extraordinary that it has seemingly taken the Liberal opposition embarrassing the government into taking some action on this issue before we saw this bill introduced and, even then, much of the work that this bill will do relies on regulations that we still have not seen. The bill that was initially introduced in the other place was to commence on some date in the never-never that was not named. Again, it took the Liberal opposition to move amendments there urging these provisions to commence sooner. There is just no sense of urgency from the Malinauskas Labor government when it comes to the knife crime crisis. There is no sense of urgency from the Malinauskas Labor government when it comes to law and order more generally.

So, we will support this bill—half of it we came up with ourselves, the other half we have been calling on the government to act on for a long time now, and we say that the Liberal Party of South Australia will always prioritise community safety. We will always put the rights of victims first and try to make South Australians safer in our streets, our suburbs or in their own homes. It should be core business for any government and I just wish the Malinauskas Labor government would make it more of a priority.

Mr ODENWALDER: I draw your attention to the state of the house, sir.

A quorum having been formed:

Ms HOOD (Adelaide) (17:18): I rise in support of this bill, that would see South Australia have the toughest knife laws in the country. The comprehensive package of reforms includes expanding police powers to conduct wanding searches in shopping centres and at public transport hubs, requirements for the secure storage of knives in stores and the creation of two new offences for supplying knives to minors. These laws have been developed following extensive consultation with SAPOL and the broader community.

Recent tragic events across our nation, and here, closer to home, remind us of the dangers that weapons, such as knives, can pose when they are in the wrong hands. Behind these incidents are mothers, daughters, sisters, wives, partners, husbands, sons, brothers, colleagues and friends. Their names are Pikria Darchia, Faraz Tahir, Ashlee Good, Jade Young, Dawn Singleton and Yixuan Cheng who lost their lives at Bondi Junction, with a further 12 injured, including Ashlee Good's baby girl.

Their names are Julie 'Julez' Seed who, at just 38 years old, was stabbed to death at her workplace in Plympton in December 2023, robbing her daughters of their mother, and her fiance of his future wife. Julie's colleague, Susan Scardigno, survived the horrific ordeal. Each individual has a story, a family, hopes and plans for the future, and they are a reminder to us in this place about why reforming knife legislation is so important. We do this work in the hope that we will not have to read out the names of loved ones who will no longer go home to their families.

Strong knife laws are an area of the law in South Australia that we have often led the nation on. In 2012, the then Labor government introduced a suite of reforms, such as prohibiting the sale of knives to minors under 16, and banning the marketing of knives in a way that suggested that the knife was suitable for combat. Further changes were made in 2017 regarding SAPOL's ability to conduct metal detector searches when reasonably suspecting a person of carrying a weapon. The reforms in this bill go even further and will see South Australia with the most comprehensive knife laws in the country.

As a result of stakeholder feedback received during consultation, including from the public, targeted stakeholders, and particularly with SAPOL, the following reforms are proposed. The bill will expand police metal detector search powers on declared public transport vehicles, public transport hubs, at shopping centres, and all licensed premises. It will expand police metal detector searches at any public place where there is a likelihood of violence or disorder, and it will expand police metal detector search powers on any person with a relevant history of weapon-related violence or who is a member of a declared criminal organisation.

The bill will increase the age for purchasing knives from 16 years to 18 years with no exceptions. Currently the age of sale to purchase a knife is 16, with exemptions for a razor blade permanently enclosed in a cartridge or a plastic or wooden knife used for eating and intended to be disposed of afterwards. Clause 5 of the bill will raise the age of lawful sale of a knife to 18 with no exceptions, except for the existing allowance for using plastic/wooden knives for eating.

The bill will require the safe storage of knives for sale and also require the display of prohibition notices, both in bricks and mortar and online premises. The types of knives subject to these requirements will be determined by regulation but are unlikely to include knives such as butter knives. Costs will be borne by the retailer, noting this requirement is supported by the National Retailers Association. The bill will create a new offence for supplying a knife to a minor if the supplier knew or ought to have reasonably known that the minor intended or was likely to use the knife in the commission of an offence. The bill will expand offences for carrying and using knives in a manner likely to cause a reasonable person to fear for their safety at schools and public places, to cover childcare centres, preschools, kindergartens, universities and TAFE SA campuses.

It will make amendments in anticipation of prescribing swords as a prohibited weapon by regulation, meaning they will be subject to more strict laws around their use and possession. In anticipation of the more strict prescription of machetes as prohibited weapons, the bill creates an extension to the prohibited weapons offences for gardening and camping purposes which will apply only to machetes. I believe these reforms will be tough, effective and give police the tools they need to keep our community safe.

I want to acknowledge and thank all of those people who had their say during the extensive consultation on these measures, in particular SAPOL. I also want to recognise the tireless work of our Attorney-General, the Hon. Kyam Maher MLC, in the other place, on this bill, alongside his staff in the Attorney-General's Department, and thank the Premier and the police minister for their support of these reforms. I commend the bill to the house.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Workforce and Population Strategy) (17:23): I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr BATTY: Minister, we have heard about the extensive consultation on this bill and the discussion paper and the YourSAy page that received a number of submissions. That consultation, I think, concluded about seven months ago. Is it the intention of the government to formally release a final report or respond to those submissions, and will those submissions be released publicly?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No. My advice is that we are at this point not intending to release those nor to issue a response. The response is the bill, I presume.

Mr BATTY: Is there any reason why you would not be releasing the submissions in the usual fashion? You also might like to get the website updated, which currently reads, 'The final outcomes of the consultation will be documented here.' Is there a reason why we cannot see the submissions?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am advised that it is not usual practice for them to be published after a consultation.

Mr BATTY: Were any of the submissions that were received throughout that YourSAy process against any of the proposals in this bill that we are debating today, and what were they and what were the concerns that might have been raised in the submissions that we cannot see?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am advised that, broadly speaking, the consultation review of the people was supportive of this legislation and there was, of course, extensive detailed consultation with the police commissioner.

Mr BATTY: Was this bill actually consulted on—the final form of the bill that was introduced—and, if so, who was consulted?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Targeted consultation on a draft bill was undertaken with the Commissioner of Police, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Chief Justice, the Chief Judge of the District Court, the Chief Magistrate, the judge of the Youth Court, the State Courts Administrator, the National Retail Association, the Australian Retailers Association, the Shopping Centre Council of Australia, and the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association. Substantive responses were received from the Shopping Centre Council of Australia and the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr BATTY: Clause 2 is the commencement clause. Where did the wording of this clause come from?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: As I understand it, that was the way the clause was amended in the upper house.

Mr BATTY: It was amended in the upper house I think by the Liberal opposition, which pointed out that it has taken us quite a long time to arrive at this point when it comes to acting on knife crime and that these laws have been somewhat in the go-slow lane. Of course, we had some concerns that allowing them to commence at a future date means they are going to remain in the go-slow lane, which again is not just trying to be picky; it is about victims out there in our streets and suburbs. Is there any reason why the government was seeking to delay the commencement of this bill that has already taken eight months to end up here?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The standard practice, as the member is aware, is that, when there is a reasonably complex piece of legislation, some time is allowed for regulations to be prepared but also for all of those affected by the changes to the law to be fully aware of that. That includes the police in enforcing but also retailers, shopping centres and so on. The standard approach in preparing the draft bill, to which I do not believe there was any objection in the consultation process on the draft bill, was that it would be commenced when all of those matters were lined up. The government had no objection to the change to bring forward some of those clauses and that is why it has resulted in this version here.

Mr BATTY: I am glad the government could support our amendment so that these laws could commence sooner. I think there needs to be a sense of urgency when it comes to the knife crime crisis and when it comes to law and order more generally, so I am glad the Liberal opposition can inject a bit of urgency into the situation.

With the rest of the clauses that do not commence on assent, a lot of them will require some education and awareness for the sellers of knives, but a lot of them actually just rely on regulations. I have not seen any draft regulations. Do they exist? Is there any reason why we are not seeing them at the same time as this bill?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It is not standard practice for legislation to be drafted until the piece of law is through because of the changes that may well influence what the regulations cover, but nonetheless what is occurring currently is consultation on what will be in those regulations so everyone is ready as soon as the legislation is done and the drafting process will commence with some confidence about what will be in there.

Mr BATTY: I guess our point is that the knife crime crisis does not call for standard practice. It calls for some urgency and it calls for some extraordinary practice and I do not understand how we have not had the last eight months to consult on the regulations at the same time that we have been consulting on the bill. So I guess my question is: when do you expect the regulations to be ready because presumably we find ourselves sitting here now and a lot of this bill cannot commence because the regulations do not exist yet? Much of this bill is only effective if we have the regulations in place and I cannot think why they could not be ready today or could not have been ready over the last eight months. So when will the regulations commence and indeed when will clauses 3 to 7 and 11 commence?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Clearly, the Attorney-General is in the other place and will determine the timing of finalising those regulations. There has already been consultation on what is going to be in those regulations, as is orthodox waiting for the legislation to be finalised before they are drafted. While I am not going to speak to bind the Attorney-General on specific timing and I am trying not to react too much to the political tone—although I accept there was some in the second reading speech that I gave—the reality is that this is taken very seriously by the Attorney-General and he will in no way be holding up the process to make that part of the legislation come into force as soon as is practicable.

In opposition, it is reasonably straightforward to say, 'This should happen immediately and that should happen,' without having to do the extensive consultation on the actual practical application of the piece of legislation and the regulations and without having to talk to all of the people who are involved. That work has been undertaken. It will be finalised as soon as this legislation is through, and I am sure that the Attorney-General in the other place will accelerate to make this important legislation come into full fruition as soon as possible.

Mr BATTY: I appreciate you might not know the exact dates and it is a job for the Attorney, but are we talking a matter of days or weeks or months or years for the bulk of this to commence? It has taken the Attorney eight months to get here. Is it going to be another eight months before we actually see this—

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Odenwalder): Member for Bragg, I have been pretty generous in giving you more than the allotted number of questions, because I like to see a free-flowing debate, but I think the minister has answered that question.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

Mr BATTY: Clause 3 is the interpretations clause, with a whole lot of definitions being amended. One definition that is not in there is a 'knife', which seems important. Is the minister able to define what a knife is for the purposes of this bill?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The reason it is not in this amendment bill is that 'knife' is already defined within the Summary Offences Act. It includes a blade, for example, a knife blade or a razor block.

Mr BATTY: The definition currently in the act is an inclusive definition. It is not limited to just a blade or a razor. What other knives are captured by the laws that we are talking about today, I guess, is what I am trying to understand. Is a machete a knife?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The definition, as the member points out, is inclusive, and we are not seeking to amend that in this legislation. What we will be doing is using regulations to define the operation of the bill on various kinds of knife in terms of how they might be stored and so on.

Mr BATTY: Yes, the bill has some provisions which refer to a prescribed knife, I think, but that is quite a limited application in the bill. The bulk of the bill deals with knives generally. I am not trying to be difficult. I am just trying to understand the scope of what we are legislating today. Perhaps by way of another example, is a butterknife the type of knife that we are considering in this bill, that a 17 year old, for example, would not be able to buy under this legislation?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I think it is important to put into context—I do not necessarily mean to get distracted by the cutlery question, but we could spend a bit too much time on the cutlery question—that what we are doing is moving the age from 16 to 18. Any questions about what kind of knife is captured is already part of our law and the operation of our law.

What the regulations will enable us to do is to have some modification of the way in which the various elements of the operation of the act affect different kinds of knives, so exclusion then becomes possible. The fundamental premise is not to alter the definition of what is covered but to alter the age at which it can be bought.

Mr BATTY: I understand. So the current definition of knife stays as it is. I guess my question is: under the laws we pass today, are we banning a 17 year old from buying a butterknife?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: There is an existing regulation. Say we contrast a 15 year old now with a 17 year old after this legislation commences, unless there is any regulatory change then, yes, what a 15 year old now cannot buy a 17 year old will not be able to buy. But there is a regulation that allows 15 year olds to buy razor blades that are fully enclosed, for example, and that excludes them from the definition of 'knife' for that purpose. A decision can be made through regulation to allow a 17 year old to buy something that currently a 15 year old cannot but, as I say, that is not the focus of this change. The change is not about adding in or removing kinds of knives; it is about changing the age at which they can be purchased.

Mr BATTY: On a slightly different topic within the same clause, I note that we are deleting the word 'sword' from the definition of an offensive weapon. I understand from your second reading speech this is foreshadowing a sword being listed as a prohibited weapon, with even more regulation requirements.

Is a sword currently listed as a prohibited weapon and, if not, why not? When did government decide to list—well, they have not. When will government decide to list a sword as a prohibited weapon? Would it not make more sense to remove the definition of a sword from an offensive weapon after listing a sword as a prohibited weapon? Sorry, I have confused you there. Why have we not listed a sword as a prohibited weapon already?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I sometimes think I should be given a free law degree for stepping into these kinds of detailed legislative discussions outside my portfolio. Let's just run through the definitions briefly, as I understand them.

An offensive weapon is a lower level, so there can be a defence for having an offensive weapon under various legitimate justified circumstances. A prohibited weapon is a significant level, so you are not allowed to have one. What this legislation is doing is taking a sword out of offensive and putting it into prohibited. That does not mean that a sword could not also be treated as an offensive weapon if it is being used in a way that then brings it into the definition of an offensive weapon.

The reason that there has been this elevation of machete and sword to being prohibited is through consultation. We were asked by the police, while we were making these changes, could we fix what they regard as something that does not quite work.

Mr BATTY: Just on that then, I think you said—

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Odenwalder): I think this will be the last question on clause 3. Your questions are succinct.

Mr BATTY: Thank you. I think you said that this legislation takes the sword out of being an offensive weapon and makes it a prohibited weapon. I do not think that is quite right. What it does is it stops it being an offensive weapon, but the act of making it a prohibited weapon is done by regulation. When did the police ask for swords to be made prohibited weapons? Why could we not have done this yesterday or last year?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: You are absolutely correct that the prohibited weapons are identified through regulation, but we have been very explicit in the second reading speech that that is what will be occurring and that we will not be removing it as an offensive weapon until we have made that change. The police, in the context of preparing this bill, asked for it and that is why it is in this bill.

Mr TELFER: I am following this with interest. I hope to be succinct as well. Looking at the original legislation that this is actually amending, offensive weapon includes a rifle, gun, pistol, knife, sword, club, bludgeon, truncheon or other offensive or lethal weapon or instrument that does not include a prohibited weapon. It is strange that sword is one that has been taken out of offensive weapon in this context but offensive weapon still includes a rifle, gun, pistol, knife, etc. Why specifically sword from offensive weapon? Are these others included as prohibited weapons? Is it all to do with the scenario that they are in? It is just strange for a non-legal degree individual like myself, the same as many in this place, upon reading that isolated aspect of the sword in particular.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Odenwalder): I asked this very question four years ago, but I will let the minister answer.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The short answer is SAPOL asked for this change, so we are making this change. But I think a reasonable interpretation also would be that there is an entire act dedicated to the licensing and restriction of firearms, so they are already in a different category. The Firearms Act does the work of controlling when and how that is a legitimate item whereas SAPOL have felt that swords are not adequately treated in a sufficiently serious way and have asked us, while making these others changes, to add that change.

Mr TELFER: That is around the firearms, so the rifle and the gun aspect of the definition of offensive weapon. You are including sword in the prohibited weapon aspect. Knife is staying in the offensive weapon definition, but then obviously also club and the rest of the ones that I mentioned before. Is it just the case that SAPOL have not requested these other offensive weapons to be included as a prohibited one and if that request came the government would make that additional change?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We take seriously any requests that come from the police, but the police had the opportunity to ask for any other changes and clearly what they have asked for is this one. They presumably find the management through offensive weapon limitations sufficient for bludgeons and knives.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Minister, are you able to advise on what date SAPOL first requested that a sword be made a prohibited weapon?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No, I do not have detailed advice on the date, but it has arisen in the context of preparing this piece of legislation.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: And a machete? What date was that first requested?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Similarly, this has arisen during the process of consultation for this piece of legislation.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: What was the date of that consultation?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The consultation has been extensive and ongoing for many months. As was identified earlier, when we had the draft piece of legislation, we had further consultation with the Commissioner of Police as well as a number of officers of the courts and shopping centre managers and the relevant union, and so on. There has been ongoing consultation for a long period of time, and through that process these matters arose.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: How often was the minister updated on the process of the consultation? At what stage of the consultation was the status of machetes and swords raised?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I do not have advice on that matter for this chamber.

Clause passed.

Clause 4 passed.

Clause 5.

Mr BATTY: This is the clause that makes it unlawful to sell a knife to children. There is another bill before the house, that I certainly will not talk about in this context, that purports to do similar but had some exemptions in it, including, for example, an exemption for—I do not have it in front of me—legitimate education and training purposes. When did the government decide not to have any exemptions? Why did they decide not to have any exemptions? Where did this approach come from, is my query?

It is particularly relevant in the context where the Attorney in October last year, I think misunderstanding what our bill did, expressly criticised our bill for not having exemptions at that time, when of course it did. So I was somewhat surprised by this approach, which seems to be a change of heart from the Attorney, who in October last year was very concerned about apprentice chefs who need to be able to buy a knife for their work, but they seem to have been forgotten in this final draft that has made it to the house.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The question of exemptions is a legitimate debate to have, obviously. It is legitimate to see both sides of the way in which one might want to restrict by age the access to buying knives. However, in the course of the consultation it became very clear from the national retailers that to seek to have retailers identifying whether or not an exemption was valid—a particular person wanting to buy something be identified not by proof of age but by further other forms of proof—would be too onerous, too cumbersome and, therefore, we listened very carefully to that feedback, because one of the guiding principles in law is that it is able to be applied.

Mr BATTY: Thank you, minister, particularly for the insight about the national retailers. We have not seen their submission because we are not allowed to see the submissions, but one letter I have seen from the South Australian Independent Retailers to the Attorney in August last year seems to say the opposite. It says, and I quote:

'In principle' [South Australian Independent Retailers] supports:…

an exemption or defence where the purchase of such a weapon is required for the child's employment, education and training

Were those views taken into account? Did they change over the course of the consultation period, or are there just simply some stakeholders even within the retail sector who have different views on this issue, and in this case the Attorney has favoured the views of the national retailers rather than the South Australian independent retailers?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Indeed there are different views amongst people who have contributed to the consultation, including within the retail sector, but a decision was made that the call for simplicity of application was the wisest course.

Mr BATTY: What is the penalty for this offence? Does this bill before the house increase the penalty of this offence and, if not, why not?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The penalty has not changed. It is a maximum penalty of $20,000 or imprisonment for two years, and there was a decision not to change that.

Mr TELFER: Minister, I point you to the end of this consideration. Under 21DB(6) there is a line that gives the definition of retail premises, which includes market stall; temporary or pop-up shop (however described); or any other premises or place, or premises or places of a class, prescribed by the regulations. That line opens up the opportunity for there to be additional aspects as appointed in the regulations. Does the government have any particular examples of what those other premises or places might be, or is this basically the opportunity to create a catch-all for any alternate retail option? Is anything envisioned by that wording in particular?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: It does give us that flexibility. There is no intention at present to have alternative definitions, but that will be the subject of consultation. It may be that something arises that has not currently been contemplated.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

Mr BATTY: Clause 6 deals with a number of things, including notices to be displayed on the sale and also some other obligations on retail premises. New section 21DC uses that definition we talked about earlier of the prescribed knife. When will we know what we are actually legislating for here? What sorts of knives might be prescribed in the first instance? Could you give some examples perhaps and an indication when we will see the regulations? Is it the intention, for example, that a simple kitchen knife be prescribed?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I will note that I think the question and answer that we had last was actually on this clause. I suddenly realised why you were asking what you are asking, which is no problem at all. No, we do not want to canvass here what those knives are likely to be. They are currently the subject of consultation, as we have described. We are getting ready to be able to have the regulations as speedily as possible, so that will emerge during that process.

Mr BATTY: We keep hearing about the ongoing consultation on what will be in the regulations. How can members of the public engage in that consultation? What does it look like, and how is it different to the consultation which received 100 submissions in July last year?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The consultation is targeted consultation with those affected, so particularly retail, the police, the transport sector. They are the ones we are doing the detailed consultation with. There is not, at this stage, I do not think, an intention to do a broad public consultation on the definition of the kind of knife that should be put in storage.

Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 17:30

The CHAIR: Member for Bragg, the floor is yours.

Mr BATTY: I think we are still on clause 6, and we were exploring this definition of prescribed knives and when we might see the regulations and what they might contain. Did the government consider using that prescribed knife language elsewhere in the bill? It might have helped you get around the 'What is a knife?' type questions we were exploring earlier. Is there a reason why it is limited just to this clause?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I do not know what might have been in the mind over the course of the development of this legislation, in terms of 'Did the Attorney-General consider?' I could not answer that, but he settled on this version of the bill.

The CHAIR: There are no other questions on clause 6?

Mr BATTY: Yes, clause 6.

The CHAIR: You realise that is your third question.

Mr BATTY: This is?

The CHAIR: No, that was.

Mr BATTY: You are being very generous, sir.

The CHAIR: I did not say I was going to give you an extra question. I will give you another question; let's move on.

Mr BATTY: I am in your hands, Chair.

The CHAIR: No, go ahead.

Mr BATTY: Thank you. I think one of the questions I asked before the break was about what types of knives might be prescribed. I just want to return to whether we are targeting the lower end of the knife scale. I put that question to you again about whether a simple kitchen knife might be prescribed and, if not, will the legislation actually be effective?

I think there was an incident at a Coles store in Queensland earlier this year or at the end of last year that sparked a bit of commentary about how knives in supermarkets should be stored. That involved just a simple butterknife or it might have been a steak knife, I do not know, but a kitchen knife of some sort. Is the intention to target your butterknife, your steak knife, your kitchen knife, or is this more at the machete end of the scale?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: We have not defined it here. We are going to do it through regulations. There is not much advantage in my speculating on where the consultation process that the Attorney-General is undertaking might lead him. The case that was cited by the member will be relevant and be understood about the consequences of that, but my speculating here is of no legal weight and therefore it would be purely speculation.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

Mr TEAGUE: Perhaps this is an opportunity to address the government's reasons for the substitution of 'education facilities' and 'education facility' respectively instead of 'schools' and 'a school'. I think there is a reason for broadening the definition or the scope. Is there some rationale that the government can provide to the committee about that?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: The current legislation defines a school as a primary or secondary school and, as was canvassed extensively in my fairly lengthy second reading speech for which the member was not there, this use of 'education facility' and the definition that is attached to it enables us to go from preschool all the way through to university, with schools and TAFE in between.

Clause passed.

Clause 8 passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [DeputyPremier–1]—

Page 10, after line 36 [inserted section 66Z]—After subsection (4) insert:

(5) To avoid doubt, a reference in this section to a public place includes a reference to a place of worship.

Amendment No 2 [DeputyPremier–1]—

Page 12, line 7 [inserted section 66ZB(1)(b)]—After 'a' insert 'declared'

Amendment No 3 [DeputyPremier–1]—

Page 13, after line 37—After section 66ZC insert:

66ZCA—Declaration of place of worship

(1) The Commissioner may, by notice in the Gazette, declare a place of worship to be a declared place of worship for the purposes of this Division.

(2) Before making a declaration under this section, the Commissioner must—

(a) be satisfied that the exercise of powers under section 66ZB is necessary or appropriate for the purposes of deterring or detecting the commission of offences involving the possession or use of a knife or other weapons in the place of worship; and

(b) be satisfied that the exercise of powers under section 66ZB—

(i) is likely to be effective in deterring or detecting the commission of offences involving the possession or use of a knife or other weapons in the place of worship; and

(ii) will not unduly affect lawful activity in the place of worship; and

(c) in the case of a place of worship that has previously been the subject of a declaration under this section—have regard to whether searches carried out under section 66ZB pursuant to the declaration identified persons carrying knives or other weapons.

(3) A declaration under this section—

(a) must specify the area that comprises the declared place of worship (which may, to avoid doubt, include specified premises); and

(b) may be subject to conditions specified in the notice; and

(c) must comply with any other requirements set out in the regulations; and

(d) remains in force until revoked under this section.

Mr BATTY: This is in regard to a whole range of new search powers in certain circumstances. New section 67ZE envisages the commissioner declaring certain shopping precincts as declared shopping precincts. Has the government received any advice on what shopping centres might be initially declared, and when this will happen?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: No, we don't know is the simple answer. The police commissioner needs to determine and go through a range of processes in order to determine what he is likely to wish to declare and, of course, we do not know what in the future might be declared over time.

Mr BATTY: I suspect I will receive a similar answer if I went through some of the other provisions. New section 66ZF envisages declarations of public transport hubs. Again, is there any indication that you can provide this committee on when there might be public transport hubs declared and whether this is targeted at any particular place or hub, and what that might be? Has the commissioner, for example, in the course of the consultation process and the new targeted consultation process raised particular concerns with particular areas?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: I am not aware of any particular locations or areas that the police commissioner might have in his mind and, therefore, it would be pure speculation for me to describe which ones could be considered.

Mr BATTY: Similarly, on new section 66ZG, which deals with declaring public transport services, how does this one work? Is this a particular bus route that might be declared or a particular train line that might be declared? Similarly, as previously, is the government aware of any services that might initially be declared? I guess for all of these possible declared precincts, in the course of what we have established as being a fairly extensive consultation—and, particularly with SAPOL, a fairly targeted one—has the government not asked these questions about where there are areas of particular concern?

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE: Yes, it is intended to be for a particular bus line or train line in terms of definition. Again, in terms of which ones might be considered by the commissioner, because it will be dependent upon intelligence that would be received any discussion in consultation is not really relevant to a decision that would be made in the future based on intelligence.

Mr TEAGUE: I might just say, it is a bit of an unfortunate circumstance of the drafting that here we are. There is a whole lot of substance of the bill that is contained within clause 9 because it is inserting a whole new part, and the shadow minister for police has addressed that aspect of it that is about the declaration of certain areas and services and so on. If I might just go a bit further back up to those searches that are permitted of certain persons, the division 4 searches and what will be the new section 66ZA, that is a provision that is now applying to certain persons, as opposed to prescribing of places.

In terms of the machinery, the persons to whom this is going to apply is a person who within five years immediately preceding the relevant time has been found guilty of a prescribed offence, a person who was a member of a criminal organisation or any other person, or a person of a class prescribed by the regulations. I am constrained to the three questions. I might perhaps pause to ask: is there any consideration at all, any guidance the government can give, as to the kind of person who might be in the frame for being the subject of those regulations? That is, we have someone who is not so long ago convicted of something relevantly bad, someone who is member of a bad sort of gathering and then who knows who else?