SUMMARY OFFENCES (WEAPONS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 5 April 2011.)

Clause 5.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: When the committee last met we were considering my amendment [Wade-2] 7. The amendment would add to the definitions clause the definition of 'vicinity of licensed premises'. This definition would operate in the context of section 21C(3), which makes it an offence to carry an offensive weapon or dangerous article at night in, or in the vicinity of, licensed premises. The government's bill left 'vicinity' undefined and the opposition believes that this lack of clarity is a risk to both the police and the community.

The amendment I have moved proposes a 50-metre distance from the boundary of licensed premises as a reasonable proximity for 'vicinity' purposes, but the opposition does appreciate that that is somewhat arbitrary. The Hon. Ann Bressington has proposed an alternative which focuses on the areas where people are entering and leaving a licensed premise, and the opposition is attracted to the Hon. Ann Bressington's amendment, which I understand has been filed as [Bressington-3], amendment No.1. As it builds the area into the offence itself, there is no need for a definition, and accordingly I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.

Leave granted; amendment withdrawn.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Page 4, after line 23—After section 21A insert:

21AB—Expiry of criminal intelligence provisions

Information may not be classified as criminal intelligence for the purposes of this Part after the day on which the Serious and Organised Crime (Control) Act 2008 expires in accordance with section 39 of that Act.

This amendment is, in my view, consequential on [Wade-2] 1, and I seek the support of the council.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: This is in relation to criminal intelligence, which we have been over a number of times, so the government is opposed, as we have indicated, but it is, as the honourable member indicates, part of the package, so we do not propose to divide on it.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I move:

Page 5, lines 13 to 16 [clause 5, inserted section 21C(3)]—Delete subsection (3) and substitute:

(3) A person who, without lawful excuse, carries an offensive weapon or dangerous article at night while in, or while apparently attempting to enter or leave—

(a) licensed premises; or

(b) a carparking area specifically or primarily provided for the use of patrons of the licensed premises.

is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $10,000 or imprisonment for 2 years.

This amendment parallels my later amendment to section 72A, which extends to the police powers to search patrons of licensed venues or declared public events without requiring reasonable suspicion. As I will detail later, I am most uncomfortable with legislating away what has for centuries been considered a fundamental civil liberty: the freedom from arbitrary search. However, in the context of section 21C, which we are currently debating, it is necessary to explain that my amendments to section 72A seek to restrict the search powers strictly to patrons of licensed venues, that is, those within or apparently attempting to enter or exit the venue, or in the venue's car park, and not those simply in the vicinity of, but who may very well have no intention of entering, a licensed venue.

These are extraordinary powers we are being asked to extend to the police. It is my position that, if arbitrary search has the support of this parliament, those powers should at least be narrowly focused on those whom the government seeks to target, and that is patrons of licensed premises. If those powers were to extend to the loose term of 'vicinity', which I am led to believe could extend as far as 500 metres or even a statutorily defined distance, even those walking past a cafe, restaurant, pub or nightclub, whether it be in Hindley Street or the main street in a country town and whether it be on the same side or the other side of the street, would inadvertently be captured and their otherwise right to freedom from arbitrary search would be extinguished.

This is wrong, and I am hopeful that when I move my amendments to section 72A this committee will concur. I am thankful to those members who have indicated to me their support. This amendment seeks to make section 21C(3), which carries over the existing offence of carrying an offensive weapon or dangerous article into a licensed venue or currently in the vicinity of a licensed venue under section 15(1ba), consistent with my amendments to section 72A by restricting the offence to only those within, or apparently attempting to enter or exit, a licensed venue, or those within a car park primarily provided for a licensed venue.

It will still be an offence to carry an offensive weapon or dangerous article, but only when a person enters a licensed venue will they be liable to the increased penalty which, in the case of an offensive weapon, is four times greater than they would otherwise receive. By restricting the increased penalties to only patrons, the ambiguity of what is and what is not the vicinity is lost, the policy of this parliament in condemning taking offensive weapons or dangerous articles into a pub or other licensed venues becomes clear and we ensure that only those we are intending to target are captured. I commend the amendment to the committee.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: The aggravated offence now to be included in new section 21C(3) was introduced in response to an election commitment made by the government in 2002. The section makes it an offence for a person to carry an offensive weapon or dangerous article at night or in the vicinity of licensed premises without lawful excuse. The intent of this offence is to prevent the carriage of knives and other weapons in licensed premises or near licensed premises, as the government believes that there is a generally higher risk of violence and antisocial behaviour in the vicinity of licensed premises at night time than in general.

'Vicinity' is used in many South Australian statutes. To some extent, it takes it meaning from the context. Its ordinary meaning as described in the seventh edition of the Concise Oxford Dictionary is 'surrounding district, nearness in place to or close relationship to'. Thus, a person who is in the street outside licensed premises is in the vicinity of them. The person who is some distance away in the car park of the hotel would be in the vicinity of the hotel. The government thinks this is a reasonable approach, as an intoxicated person with a weapon can be a dangerous combination, whether they are in the licensed premises, lined up in the queue outside, in the car park of the licensed premises, or standing on the footpath, across the road or down the street from the licensed premises.

Under the current provision, a person caught carrying a weapon in one of these areas could be charged with the aggravated offence. The Hon. Ms Bressington's amendment would not cover all the areas I have just referred to. It would, of course, cover the licensed premises and the car park. It would also cover the queue, as it applies to a person apparently attempting to enter or leave the licensed premise. What it will not cover is a person or persons with a knife or other weapons waiting across the road from the club or pub or lying in wait for someone to leave the licensed premises.

In such a situation, the person could be charged only with the lesser offence of carrying an offensive weapon and not the aggravated offence, which has a maximum penalty four times greater than the lesser offence. This could create anomalies in the application of the legislation. Although the government would prefer that the offence be left alone and that the definition of 'vicinity' be left to interpretation by the courts, it will not oppose the amendment moved by the Hon. Ms Bressington.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I rise to reiterate what I suggested in an earlier amendment as I withdrew it. We as the opposition are attracted to the Hon. Ann Bressington's amendment. Out of respect for the comments made by the minister, I would respond to them by saying that he talks about intoxicated persons being dangerous near licensed premises, but one has only to take the Adelaide Casino licensed premises, which is very near to the parliament itself, to know that hundreds of people walk past licensed premises every day who are not intoxicated and who have no intention of interacting with the licensed premises at all. They would be caught by the aggravated offence. In terms of anomalies, I am a patron of the Bean Bar coffee shop across the road from the casino, which I think would be deemed to be within the vicinity of the casino. I do not see why people in neighbourhoods where licensed premises exist should be treated differently to business premises beyond the vicinity of licensed premises.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Firstly, I am a little bit confused by the government's position. I am not sure if they are opposing the amendment or not. So, perhaps a can just ask that question of the minister.

The Hon. S.G. Wade: They don't like it, but they're not opposing it.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Okay, I guess I will leave it at that then.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Just to clarify it, as I said, while we would prefer that this amendment not be made, we will not be opposing it. In answer to the Hon. Mr Wade, we have said that we are not opposing it, so I am not sure what his problem is.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Page 5, after line 35 [clause 5, inserted section 21C]—After subsection (6) insert:

(7) A person who, without lawful excuse, has possession of an offensive weapon in a school is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty:

(a) for a first offence—$2,500 or imprisonment for six months;

(b) for a subsequent offence—$5,000 or imprisonment for 12 months.

(8) A person who, without lawful excuse—

(a) uses an offensive weapon; or

(b) carries an offensive weapon that is visible, in the presence of any person in a school or public place in a manner that would be likely to cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his or her personal safety, is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $10,000 or imprisonment for 2 years.

(9) For the purposes of an offence against subsection (8), no person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.

(10) If on the trial of a person for an offence against subsection (7) or (8), the court is not satisfied that the person is guilty of the offence charged, but is satisfied that the person is guilty of an offence against subsection (1)(a), the court may find the person guilty of the offence against subsection (1)(a).

This amendment is unfortunately deceptively brief because the issues it raises are greater than the number of paragraphs in it. This amendment does four things. One of those things is to consolidate the key weapons offence provisions in one section. By doing so, it brings forward the debate on amendments to provisions that currently sit in proposed section 21E.

In terms of the substantive effect, the amendment does three other things: first, it extends the possession offence to all offensive weapons; secondly, it focuses possession offences on schools; and, thirdly, it extends the fear provision to the display of any offensive weapons at schools and public places.

If it will help the committee, I will summarise the current law in the following way. It is an offence to carry an offensive weapon anywhere without lawful excuse. It is an offence to possess or use a dangerous article anywhere without lawful excuse. It is also an offence to possess or use a prohibited weapon anywhere with or without lawful excuse.

What the government bill primarily wants to do is extend the offences in relation to one particular offensive weapon, that is, a knife. It proposes to make it an offence to possess a knife in the context of schools and public places. The opposition view is that the bill is in some respects too broad and in some respects too narrow, so this amendment both extends and focuses the possession offence.

Firstly, it extends the possession offence beyond knives to include all offensive weapons. We consider that it would be bizarre to not allow possession of a knife in a school but to allow possession of other offensive weapons, such as a rifle, a gun, a pistol, a sword, a club, a bludgeon or a truncheon. Secondly, our amendment would focus the possession offence on schools rather than other public places.

We are concerned that applying the possession offence to public places catches far too much incidental activity for the offence to be reasonable and fair. Under the government's proposal, you could not leave your house with a knife in your car without being ready to defend yourself to a police officer or even a court. Perhaps you have a toolkit with a Stanley knife. Perhaps you have fishing tackle with a knife to gut fish. Perhaps you have with you a picnic set with eating utensils.

I am sure that the minister will reassure us that those are all lawful excuses and that, with or without the assistance of the earlier amendment supported by this committee, lawful excuse would be available. But it does not take long to think of situations where law-abiding citizens would be unwittingly caught by this provision. For example, you might leave your fishing knife in the tackle box in the back of your car even though you are only going fishing every couple of weeks. The prospect of going fishing in a couple of weeks is unlikely to be seen as a lawful excuse, in my view, due to a lack of proximity and time, and a person is liable to be charged with possession of an offensive weapon.

I remind the council that a public place is defined extremely broadly. A public place is defined in section 4 of the Summary Offences Act, and it includes the following:

(a) a place to which free access is permitted to the public, with the express or tacit consent of the owner or occupier of that place;

(b) a place to which the public are admitted on payment of money, the test of admittance being the payment of money only; and

(c) a road, street, footway, court, alley or thoroughfare which the public are allowed to use, notwithstanding that that road, street, footway, court, alley or thoroughfare is on private property;

That would in that context cover a lot of motorsport, recreation and other private properties.

To stress the opposition's position, we accept that a knife possession offence (even an offensive weapon possession offence) is appropriate in the school environment. The school community is more vulnerable and there is less incidental activity. But in our view a possession offence is too broad in relation to public places and risks putting law-abiding South Australians under too much restraint.

Thirdly, this amendment would extend the fear provision to display of all offensive weapons, not just knives at schools and public places. Likewise, the opposition considers that brandishing any offensive weapon, not just a knife, in a way which would induce fear in others should be an offence. This element of the offence does not focus on the form of holding the weapon but rather in the manner in which it is held.

The offence relates to a person who carries or uses an offensive weapon in a manner that would be likely to cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his or her personal safety. Our view is that the key point is whether the carriage or use would induce fear. We do not see any virtue in using an object other than a knife to induce fear. The amendments, therefore, extend the proposed offence in the bill in terms of the item carried. I commend my amendment to the council.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: The government opposes the amendment. The proposed section 21E creates two new offences specific to the possession and use of knives in a public place or school. These are deliberately separate to the current offensive weapons offence because the government wishes to specifically target the growing incidence of knife crime and discourage the possession and use of knives in public places and schools.

The proposed amendments will remove these specific knife offences from the bill and instead create two new offences relating to offensive weapons. First, it would be an offence to possess an offensive weapon in a school without lawful excuse. Second, it would be an offence to use an offensive weapon or carry an offensive weapon that is visible in the presence of any person in a school or public place.

One of the key motivators for introducing this bill is to address knife crime and the possession and use of knives in public places and schools. The government view is that these amendments defeat that purpose by unnecessarily extending the application of these offences to all offensive weapons.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: If I could briefly respond, as I mentioned in my second reading speech, as a community, I think we need to be careful about displacement. We have had a significant shift from firearms to knives as we have tightened up the laws there. I expect there will be displacement with knives. If we make it harder to get knives, people will look for other offensive weapons, and I believe it is therefore appropriate, almost as a preventive move, to block all offensive weapons, not just knives.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Family First agrees with the Hon. Mr Wade. Why would we limit this to knives? People can do a great deal of damage with other offensive weapons, whether it be in a school or a public place. I share the concerns that, if knives are harder to get, people may just lean to another weapon of choice. Family First will support the amendment.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Greens are supporting this amendment.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I am also supporting the amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I am supporting the amendment.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: In light of the will of the council, we will not oppose the amendment.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I move:

Page 5, after line 39 [clause 5, inserted section 21D]—After subsection (1) insert:

(1a) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to the sale of a knife if it is reasonable to infer that the knife was made for the consumption of food.

The new section 21D proposed by the bill is, I understand, significantly related to the sad case of Daniel Awak. On 12 November 2008 this 14-year-old boy of Sudanese background was murdered in Grenfell Street. He died from a stab wound to the heart, and we understand that the knife was bought from a nearby city store very shortly before the murder. When buying the murder weapon prior to a fight amongst a group, the youth who committed the murder told shop staff that he needed a bigger knife 'to kill the black [expletive]'.

Both the murderer and the victim were 14 years of age at the time, I understand. Reportedly the teenager took a pack of smaller bladed steak knives to the counter, but turned back before paying the shop attendants and selected a 15 centimetre knife. The murderer stabbed Daniel, who then pulled the knife from his chest and chased his attacker. When he collapsed an older friend grabbed the knife and stabbed Daniel's attacker repeatedly. Daniel died on the footpath in Grenfell Street.

The older friend received a suspended sentence for attempted murder, given the exceptional circumstances. As I understand it, Daniel's killer received a sentence with a six-year non-parole period. The non-parole period applied was set at less than the 20 year minimum mandatory maximum due to youth, immaturity and the good prospects of rehabilitation.

At least partially in response to this tragedy the government is proposing to introduce a new offence of selling a knife to a minor. In considering whether this measure is necessary we need to consider whether the incidence of knife violence amongst minors justifies an offence of selling knives to minors and whether a ban on sale would have any effect.

In effect, we are looking at the interplay of demand and supply. In terms of demand we can look at how many charges and offences have involved the use of a knife by minors since 1996. In answer to a question at the end of the second reading stage the government kindly provided a significant amount of information, which I greatly appreciate. That information included the fact that between 2000 and 2009 8,282 knife/machete charges were recorded on the police apprehensions report database, and 1,414 of those involved the use or possession of a knife/machete by a minor under the age of 18 years. I stress the fact that we are talking there about under the age of 18 years. As you will note, the bill talks about sale to people under the age of 16 years; in other words, 15 years and below.

The total number of recorded charges in which a knife/machete was listed as a weapon between 2000 and 2009 for each age cohort are as follows:

for 10 to 14 year olds there were 206 charges, and if I average that out over the ages that is 41 charges per year band;

for 15 to 19 year olds there were 1,472 charges, which averages out at 294 charges per age year band; and

for 20 to 24 olds there were 1,260 charges, which averages out at 252 charges per age year band.

Clearly, there is a problem with knife use with children, and with children as young as 10 to 14 years old. There was a rapid escalation in the late teens, so that the average number of offences per age year increases from 41 in the 10 to 14 year age bracket to 294 in the 15 to 19 age bracket. In fact, it peaks in that late teen bracket; however, we do not know whether the escalation is at the age of 15 or at 19. The data is just not available. The fact is that if the escalation is at 16, 17, 18 or 19 then the proposed ban on the sale of knives to people under the age of 16 will have no significant impact.

We do know that knife crime is a particular problem with young people from 15 to 29 and that it does not fall to the 10 to 14 year old level until the 50 to 54 year age bracket—which I can assure the council is a bracket I am now in. The opposition has come to the conclusion that there is demand and that we need to take effective steps to reduce that demand. So, even in spite of the lack of conclusive evidence, we will be supporting this measure; however, I indicate my concern at the narrowness of the government's focus.

At clause 1, I asked the minister if he could put this bill in the context of what else the government was doing to address knife crime. As I said, at that point, of course, he was not the responsible minister and I did not hold him accountable for these programs. However, the response was typical of the government, that is, 'What's this got to do with the bill?' as though the bill was a virtue in itself. Laws do not do anything in and of themselves. They need to be implemented—and implemented with a range of measures. If anything comes from the academic research from around the world, it is that knife legislation achieves little unless it is supported by a range of other measures.

We need to make people feel safe, and we particularly need to work with individuals who have been victims of knife crime because research shows that people are more inclined to carry a knife if they have been the victim of a knife attack themselves. We need to work with groups of young people who might be inclined to use knives. We are very concerned that the government is not giving due regard to demand-side opportunities. It is easy to legislate and have some impact on supply; it is harder to have a real impact on demand, but it may, in fact, pay stronger dividends. That was a reflection on the demand side.

On the supply side, the opposition supports complementing demand-side initiatives with supply-side initiatives. However, in this—as in many other areas—we consider the government is taking a blunt approach that fails to take account of the fact that knives are a common feature of the daily lives of Australians. Limitations on sale may have so little impact on supply that they do not justify the detriment created.

The government has made clear that it will be able, by regulation, to exclude certain classes of knives. The Attorney-General in his second reaching speech on this particular issue said:

However, specific knives will be able to be exempted from the offence by prescription in the regulations as there are some knives that pose little risk of harm. For example, it is proposed that the regulations will exempt razor blades permanently enclosed in a cartridge and plastic takeaway knives.

The government has also made clear that it does not intend to exclude ordinary eating knives by regulation. The knives discussion paper, released in 2009, states:

Currently it is only an offence to sell a knife that is a prohibited weapon to a person under the age of 18 years.

The paper continues:

The new offence will apply to the sale of all knives including fishing knives and knives in cutlery sets.

I will just restate that: the government's discussion paper makes clear that the offence would cover knives in cutlery sets. This opposition amendment excludes from this ban a knife 'where it is reasonable to infer that the knife was made for the consumption of food'. The amendment does require an assessment of what the knife is for. Before the seller stocks the item and sells it, they should consider this: is this knife for more than the consumption of food? If this bill is passed, if it was a knife which it is not reasonable to infer is for anything more than the consumption of food, they would seriously need to consider whether they want to stock that item in the context of the obligations that it would place on them.

In that context, I might digress to reflect on the submission of the Coles supermarket group to the government's consultation on the knives discussion paper. It made the point that this legislation, if passed in the government's form, would put significant burdens on a business in compliance. It does not take long to understand that. At my local supermarket, there are about eight lanes which are staffed by a range of people, who tend to be young people—they might be only 16 themselves. Yet, under this legislation (if passed in its current form) they would be expected to monitor a vast array of items going through their checkout.

I suppose the first thing they do is assure themselves that the person who is at the counter is definitely not 16 or under. Once they have a concern that the person might be young, they have to keep a lookout to make sure that they are not buying a knife. I must admit, I have checked out the supermarket shelves at my local supermarket, and there were more than a dozen items that would be caught by this legislation. It will be even worse for them now, because they are installing electronic scanning stations, and I have got no idea how this legislation expects businesses to implement the legislation in the context of very ordinary devices.

The point we are making here is that the supply of ordinary food consumption knives is so wide that a ban on the sale of those knives is not likely to significantly affect supply. If a 15 year old cannot buy a cutlery knife from a store, they will get one from home, from a workplace or from a school. Knives made for the consumption of food would be carried in 99 per cent of homes.

We appreciate that some knives will be excluded by regulation, but we think that, because the government has indicated it is not inclined to exempt domestic knives such as knives and cutlery sets, and the impact of a ban on this class of knife is so significant, we should take the opportunity to exclude it in the act.

To quote from another stakeholder who made a submission to the government's knife discussion paper, Scouts SA reminded the government that they cater for young South Australians as young as six. They made the point that part of a youth member's inventory for camping is a knife, fork and spoon set. The proposed legislation would obviously mean that parents would need to buy these sets for the age group up to 16 years, while the group aged 16 to 26 could purchase their own.

Now, the opposition does accept that there will be some knives that would meet the definition that are still not in wide supply and their supply should not be encouraged. One knife that we would imagine that the government would take the opportunity to exclude by regulation is the steak knife. They are not heavily supplied in the community and we believe that it would be useful to have supply of that knife reduced. So, with those few words, I commend my amendment to the council.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I am glad you only chose to say a few words. It is hard to know where to begin with that contribution. I suppose, on a philosophical point about what the government is doing about an overall strategy about knife-related crime and violence and crime generally, why would I say, 'This is about the bill'? I think the answer to that is fairly straightforward. This is not a public forum about knife-related crime.

I appreciate that the honourable member, I am sure, has sincerely held views, as, I imagine, a number of other honourable members do, about what ought to be done in relation to this. Ultimately, what we are doing here as legislators is talking about the provisions of a bill. So, while I appreciate that he may well have views about what we ought to be doing in relation to a broader strategy, and he is quite entitled to have those views and to advocate them, my simple point, which I reiterate from clause 1, is that we are in the committee stage of a bill. We are looking at the legislation that is before us, not having a more general discussion about policy, which there are ample opportunities to do. I think it is proper that, in the committee stage, we focus on the legislation that is before us.

The honourable member spoke about the tragic death of Mr Awak and the other related cases and so on. Indeed, we are all saddened and mortified to see those things happen, which is one of the reasons why we are putting forward this bill. It is not a direct response, but because we are worried about knife crime more generally, whether it is committed by minors or not.

So, for that reason, we oppose this amendment. What this amendment does is start to try to pluck away at the fabric of the bill and to insert more exemptions and qualifications that make it difficult for the bill to be enacted. The honourable member said, 'What about the people at Coles and Woolies who are staffing the checkouts? They are going to have to try to determine ages and so on.' Well, what the honourable member is doing is adding more complexity to their job by making them have to make an assessment about what knife is a knife for the consumption of food and what is not.

Retailers have to make judgements all the time about people's age and what they are buying in relation to other very common goods that are probably bought an awful lot more than knives, such as liquor, tobacco and dangerous substances and items. So, while I accept that it may add some complexity to the job of retailers, it is something they have to do in relation to a number of other areas.

That does not mean that we want to complicate what they have to do, which is what would be achieved by passing this amendment. I foresee a lot of problems with cases about how you define and interpret the consumption of food. That is another example of inserting unnecessary words into a statute that make it more likely that there will be outs, or that there will be a lot of dispute about how the act applies.

Certainly, those of us who enjoy a fine piece of cooked beef at a steak restaurant know that some of the steak knives you are handed are pretty mean machines, and I do not think that I would like to be confronted by a group of minors wielding them. To suggest that because they are for the consumption of food we ought to take them out of the bill altogether, I do not think is appropriate. That would also mean that there would be a lot more attempts to apply that definition to other knives, because you could easily claim that many kitchen knives, paring knives and so on, are for the consumption of food, and I do not think it is something we want to have long judicial arguments about.

The intent of new section 21D is to restrict minors' access to all knives and to remove the opportunity for them to purchase knives without the knowledge of their parent, guardian or other responsible adult. Exempting any knives, other than those that pose very little risk of harm, would defeat the purpose of the section. That is why we have decided that only plastic takeaway style knives and razor blades permanently enclosed in a cartridge would be exempted from the offence.

So, the proposed amendment would exempt any knife if it is reasonable to infer that the knife was made for the consumption of food. Of course, that would include steak knives, bread knives, paring knives and cheese knives; a whole range of knives could be described in that way. We certainly do not believe that it is appropriate to limit the effect of the provision and create several exemptions, or create an exemption that could be used to exempt a whole range of knives.

As I said, while retailers will need to deal with the provisions of this bill, I do not think we want to complicate their job even further by making them have to make an assessment about whether or not a knife is for the consumption of food. In relation to scouts or people who enjoy fishing—and I am sure, Mr Acting Chairman, growing up you would have had a pocketknife, as most kids in country areas would—I do not believe that it is going to be a major hardship for the majority of minors. It is not as though we are trying to stop them having one altogether, but they will require parental consent, and it is not likely to be a purchase that is made particularly often.

So, the government opposes the amendment. It goes to the heart of the bill, really. If we are going to keep trying to put in exemptions and outs and bits so that you can pluck away at the fabric of it, then one has to wonder whether you are really opposed to the bill altogether and ought to just say so and oppose it, rather than put in place amendments which, essentially, whittle away at the application of the bill.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I think these are the problems we face, intricacies in bills like this, when we draw up legislation based on an almost one-off situation and try to cover all the angles on the stabbing that we are talking about of the young Sudanese boy.

In saying that, I do support this particular piece of legislation but, like the Hon. Stephen Wade, I do not know how this is going to be enforced. The minister did not even attempt to address the automatic check-outs that are in almost all supermarkets now, where you go through, you swipe the item and put your card or cash in at the end, and no attendant or check-out person is anywhere near you while you are doing this.

We are talking about whether or not we include knives to consume food: what about scissors, what about screwdrivers and what about all of these things that will still be used and could still be used as offensive weapons that will slip through all of this because we are choosing just to focus on knives and are not really thinking about how this will be policed or implemented or how it will translate out in the community?

I actually resent the fact that we will not exempt knives used for consumption of food, because you buy knife sets for Christmas presents; this is just what we do. If we do not accept the Hon. Stephen Wade's amendment, this will cause so much confusion. I doubt that it will prevent one more stabbing of a young person in our streets at all. We actually have to be sensible about this and how it will translate out there, not how it looks on paper in here. I will support the Hon. Stephen Wade's amendment.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I was hoping to respond briefly to a couple of points the minister made. In terms of his perception that it would be difficult to apply this provision, I do not agree, because the retailers will consider it at the stocking stage. I suspect Coles will do it at the statewide level. About 80 per cent of our dry grocery products are controlled by the big two, so it only takes one person at supply to read the act.

In terms of the actual wording, New South Wales is one of the pieces of legislation the government wants us to look to. I understand that the UK and New South Wales are the two precedent states in terms of knife legislation, and I draw the attention of the house to the fact that, in the New South Wales Summary Offences Regulations 2010 exempt knives category, it includes plastic knives that are designed for eating purposes. I appreciate that my amendment is not limited to plastic, but it does use the qualification 'that are designed for eating purposes'—very similar to the one I am suggesting for this act.

In terms of the minister's suggestion that it is a rare event, I do not agree. It is amazing how pieces of legislation can make you more aware of your surroundings. I was at a community picnic in the hills recently and went off to get some lunch from the food stall, and the lad in front of me was buying two or three plates; I presume that was not just for himself but was also for members of his family. That festival was using wooden knives and forks. Therefore, they would not be exempt under the minister's plastic knives exemption, and the person who sold it to him would have been guilty of an offence.

The minister talks about unstitching the act. You are unstitching the act when you exempt razor blades and plastic knives. We are making reasonable steps to make legislation useful in the community, and when the community is already flooded with cutlery I do not see any need for this parliament to legislate against it.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Any reasonable person can see that both the government and the opposition make reasonable points on both sides of the argument. If we look at the particular wording of the amendment, it says that it is reasonable to infer that the knife was made for consumption of food. This will be the key issue for Family First as to whether or not we support the amendment. The difficulty I have with that wording is that I believe you could interpret it to include things like pocket knives for peeling or slicing an apple, or something of that nature. You could consider other sorts of knives, whether they be perhaps paring knives, or whatever they may be, which it could be argued are for the consumption of food. I ask the mover of the amendment whether he would like to respond to that, as for us it is a very important issue.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I agree with the honourable member. That certainly is an issue; it is an issue of statutory interpretation. In terms of the pocketknife, I would have thought that the courts would not infer that the knife was made for the consumption of food; it was made for general purposes, not for the consumption of food.

I certainly agree with the point (and, in fact, the minister made this point in his initial contribution) that there are knives for the consumption of food that you would not want to include, for example, a paring knife. However, there are certainly a diversity of knives which are designed for the consumption of food which you would want to include. I would suggest that a butter knife would also be one that could remain within the scope of the act. I suspect that the exclusions that might be necessary to make this clause robust will be much less than the schedules that are currently being required to make the whole thing right. So, I do not see it is beyond the wit of parliamentary counsel.

I think the key point is that there is no point having a law that does not have an effect. If I am right (and I think I am) in saying that 99 per cent have knives for the consumption of food, there is little point stopping minors buying them. There is significant inconvenience to both the minors and their parents. Parents are busy enough without having to be dragged into the city to the Scout shop to buy a camping kit because the government thinks that the camping sets are dangerous weapons.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I think we are seeing very contradictory lines of argument being presented by honourable members. On one hand, we have had people saying, 'Well, how is this going to work because supermarkets will have to judge how old people are and what kind of knife it is?' Then, at the same time, we are saying, 'Oh, well, they'll be able to work that out with supply chains, so that's not going to be a problem.' In this instance, we have had the honourable member saying that he is not worried about statutory interpretation; he is happy to have the courts decide what this term means because he is pretty confident they will exercise a bit of common sense. Yet the other day, we had this lengthy argument, 'Well, we don't just want to let the courts work out what a lawful excuse is; instead, we should be very prescriptive and lay it all down.'

The honourable member suggests that we are already talking about plastic knives and razors encased in cartridges. I really cannot see a circumstance in which a plastic takeaway knife or a disposable razor blade encased in a cartridge can be considered the same as a steak knife or any knife which could be used for the consumption of food which could be interpreted very broadly. Ultimately, what I think honourable members have to decide is whether or not they support this measure. What we have is a lot of objections being raised, such as 'What if this and what if that' or 'What are the supermarkets going to do?' and 'Will this be enforceable?' or 'Will this be realistic?'

The parliament passes laws about the regulatory framework that exists, and those who choose to sell the things about which the parliament has made laws need to comply with them. So, if you are retailing liquor or tobacco, or you are hiring R-rated videos, whatever it might be, the parliament has determined that, in order to do that, these are the requirements you need to meet. So, they are the requirements you need to meet.

That does not mean that we be nonsensical. We obviously want to take into account what is practicable and reasonable. However, I do not think you can object to a measure on the basis that it is going to be inconvenient for retailers to comply with because, ultimately, the parliament makes the judgement about whether we want knives easily available and whether minors should be able to purchase them and so on. Then it is up to those who choose to sell the items whether or not they comply.

It seems to me that honourable members need to turn their minds to whether or not they really support this concept. If honourable members do not, they are entitled not to. However, there seems to be a lot of arguments being raised that there are already a lot of knives out there or—

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: It's a bad bill.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Well, the honourable member says that it is a bad bill, in which case she is entitled to vote against it.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: No. We amend it; that's our right.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: It is honourable members' right to try to amend legislation, and it is their right to oppose legislation if they think that is the right thing to do. What I do not think we should do as legislators is say, 'We don't like this bill. We would actually like to oppose it, but instead we'll just try to weaken it or we'll try to make it unworkable.'

I certainly fear that there is a strong possibility that, if we add a lot of these exemptions, objections and out clauses, we will make the bill meaningless. We have one here about exempting knives that are principally for the consumption of food. We have another one about combat knives being okay if they are marketed for a lawful activity. We constantly have this list of amendments which are designed to weaken the provisions of the bill and essentially provide so many holes in the dike, as it were, as to cause a flood.

So, I think honourable members need to decide whether they really support this or not. If they do not, they need to be forthright and say that they do not support it. That is their right. That is a legitimate position for them to take. The government is not going to accept this bill being turned into a sort of blancmange of exemptions and out clauses that will make it unworkable and not worth putting on the statute books.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Can the minister be very clear on how this is going to work with supermarkets that sell steak knives and have automatic check-out facilities where no checkout assistants are required? You go through, you swipe, you pay, you pack your own stuff and you get out of the supermarket. How are they going to prevent minors from purchasing steak knives from those supermarkets, and who is going to monitor the age of those who are using those automatic check-out facilities?

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: The honourable member could well ask how we are going to ensure that licensed premises do not let in people who are under 18. How are we going to ensure that cigarettes—

The Hon. A. Bressington: They're staffed.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order! The minister has the call.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: You could well ask how will we make sure that underage people do not buy tobacco.

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): We are not having conversations from both sides of the chamber. The minister has the call.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Thank you, Mr Acting Chairman. How do we ensure that minors do not have access to cigarette machines? How do we ensure a whole range of things? How do we ensure that people comply with fishing regulations? How do we ensure that people obey the law? Well, it is our job as legislators to put in place what we think are the right statutes and the right regulatory and legal framework for the good order of the state, to protect people's rights and liberties and, in this case, to try to protect them from knife-related crime. It is then up to citizens and businesses to comply with the law.

The government will take steps to ensure that people are educated about what the law is and assist them in complying with the law but, ultimately, can the government ensure that this law will always be obeyed? Well, no, because we cannot ensure that any law will always be obeyed. Regrettably, we know that laws are broken all the time, but what we do is put in place what we think is the best law, the best legal framework and the best statute that is going to best serve the interests of the community and the people living in this state.

We can put in place the mechanisms to ensure that people know about the law, that they are educated about it, and we can assist them to comply with it. We can also make sure that there are mechanisms in place to try to ensure that people who are breaking the law are apprehended (not necessarily physically) or that breaches of the law are detected—I suppose is a better word—and that the appropriate action is taken.

In order to do that, we have the police as well as a whole range of other regulatory officers and officials whose job is to ensure that the very statutes that the state puts in place are complied with. So, how would supermarkets choose to comply with this law? I do not know. I am not the state manager of Woolworths or Coles, but I am sure that they and other businesses would diligently attempt to comply with the statutes that this parliament has judged suitable for the good order of the state. We have laws about tobacco, liquor, spray cans, and about all sorts of things, and those retailers who choose to sell any of those items need to comply. The Hon. Ms Bressington successfully moved a bill about the sale of hydroponic equipment. One could well ask: how are we going to ensure that is complied with?

The Hon. A. Bressington: You're not, are you? It's a law on the statute book that isn't being enforced.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: The honourable member says that the law is not being enforced. I would suggest that the government invests an awful lot in the police force and in other regulatory agencies to ensure that the law is enforced. In any event, I do not think it is for the legislature to say, 'We are not confident that people will be able to comply with this law. We are not confident that this law will be enforced, and we should abandon the process and not put this law in place.' That is not a sound approach to legislating.

I point out, as I think the Hon. Mr Wade has mentioned, similar laws are in place in other jurisdictions, and national chains such as Coles and Woolworths and their affiliated companies (which I think are probably the only ones I know of that operate self-serve checkouts) would, presumably, have dealt with that matter, and how they choose to do that is a matter for them. But I am sure if they feel that the law cannot be complied with they will make that known to the relevant authorities, probably to my honourable colleague's agency, and discussions may or may not take place. Those sorts of things happen all the time.

When it comes to tobacco retailers and alcohol and all sorts of requirements that we put in place, we do not just put them out there and hope for the best but, ultimately, we certainly assist people to comply with the law, retailers and businesses. Ultimately, it is their obligation to comply with the laws that this parliament puts in place and that are given assent. When the parliament chooses to make laws and regulations about a particular thing, those who choose to sell them should take steps to ensure that they are in compliance.

Again, I reiterate that my real concern is that, if we keep pulling at the threads (I know I have used a few analogies) of this bill to try to create lots of exemptions and occasions when it will not apply or reasons why the bill would not have to be complied with, I think we weaken fundamentally the entire structure, the entire raison d'être, of the bill itself. So I think honourable members who choose to support this amendment, and a number of others, must really ask themselves whether or not they are supporting the bill, because ultimately the government is not going to enact a bill that has become meaningless by its number of exemptions.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would like to respond to the minister's comments by stressing that the opposition's primary concern is not the convenience of retailers. Our focus is about the effectiveness of the law. The key goal of this legislation is to restrict access—to stop minors, young people, getting access to knives. The government's offence of selling a knife to a child—and I should say a cutlery knife because I am focusing on that class of device—and the government's concern that we not sell a cutlery knife to a child, would have more credibility if it was actually taking measures to stop other more likely forms of supply.

If a child wants to get a cutlery knife—if they want a fancy one I know they would need to go to a retailer and we are not proposing to exempt them—I imagine the first place they would go is home. We are putting no restrictions on parents to keep their cutlery secure at night. The second place they might go is the food hall at the Myer Centre. There are cutlery stands at every corner. They could go to school cafeterias and perhaps even the Blue Room in this place. The world is flooded with cutlery knives. We are not going to put our finger in the dyke by telling children that they cannot buy knives from Harris Scarfe. Our concern is access and effective laws, and we do not believe that it is useful for this parliament to pass laws that have no effect on the real level of supply and serve no good purpose.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I want to make a point to the minister. He said that it is not our job to work out how all this is going to pan out and worry about retailers. I would like to draw a comparison with spray paint. We had a problem with graffiti and young kids accessing spray paint cans and whatever, so retailers were told to put their spray paint cans in a locked cabinet. If they thought that someone who wanted them was not of age, that person had to show ID to be able to purchase the spray paint cans.

If the government is actually serious about these knives—steak knives, bread knives, all the knives that someone can buy from a supermarket—we now have automatic check-outs are not manned. That is my point. The Hon. Gail Gago said, 'Well, they can just go to another check-out.' If these kids are going into Kmart or Target or wherever to buy a knife to go out and stab someone, they are not going to go through a manned check-out; they are going to go through the automatic check-out where there are no staff.

If we are serious about this, then perhaps make a regulation that all these steak knives, all cutlery, and all bread knives in supermarkets, must be kept in a locked cabinet. If people want to purchase them, they have to get an attendant to come and unlock the cabinet and provide it to them; if they are under 16, or there is some doubt about that, they have to show ID.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have a simple question for the minister. I understand that plastic knives are excluded, but are bamboo knives, which are similar takeaway knives, excluded?

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: They are not exempted at this point. However, it is worth pointing out again that the bill would allow, by regulation, for items to be exempted. If it became clear that there was a particular type of knife, such as a bamboo knife, that was not considered to be at all dangerous, it could be exempted by regulation. I do not believe that is the same as exempting whole classes of knives off the bat before we even implement the law. I point out that sharpened wood can be just as threatening as sharpened metal. You have to use judgement on these things, depending on the circumstances.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I want to talk about some of the possibilities. I know that this bill does not require steps to be taken in terms of point of sale, but the honourable member said that it could not possibly work. One way that it could work is the same way that cigarettes are sold at supermarkets, where customers cannot buy cigarettes and take them through an automatic check-out. If they want to purchase cigarettes, they have to go to a separate counter, where there is a human being who can make an assessment about age, etc., and purchase them there.

You could organise the sale of knives in exactly the same way; that is, classified weapons could be sold only from behind that particular counter, or a supermarket chain might decide to put its knives behind that counter along with the cigarettes. That is quite workable, that is how people buy cigarettes. They do not have the choice of taking them through an automatic check-out because they are not on the shelves.

At the supermarket where I shop, there was a time when disposable razor blade replacements, for instance, particularly the large packets, were not available for purchase off the supermarket shelves; no doubt it was because of theft—they were small items and were very expensive. Because people were pinching them, they put the purchase of the razor blade packets on the same counter as cigarettes. People had to actually go up to the counter and purchase them that way, rather than them being sold through the store.

Supermarkets come to all sorts of arrangements in terms of the sales of their goods for a range of different reasons. I reiterate: this bill is not requiring a specific action to be taken, but a range of mechanisms are already in place that make it quite simple and easy for supermarkets to ensure that an assessment of a person's age could be made at the time of purchase.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Considering that another minister of the Crown has intervened in the debate, I would ask the minister responsible for this legislation whether that is the government's intention, whether—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: I just said—

The Hon. S.G. WADE: No, I am sorry; this is a question to the minister.

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Mr Chairman, I think that I have the call. I would like to ask this minister: is it minister Finnegan's view that this act will require retailers to keep knives in a secure area, as is currently legislated for tobacco?

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: First, could I make the point that any honourable member is entitled to contribute to debate in the committee stage. I do not think there should be any reflection on the fact that the Hon. Ms Gago has chosen to contribute to the debate. That is, of course, the right of any honourable member and much to be encouraged.

As the honourable member would be well aware by reading the bill, there is no requirement on retailers in this bill to have particular sections, or what have you, as they may do for other goods. What the minister, my honourable colleague, was pointing out was that retailers deal with different approaches to different goods. As the honourable minister indicated, there are quite a few supermarkets—

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Well, no; there are quite a few supermarkets which choose to put razor blade cartridges, batteries and films—things that are small and quite valuable, particularly some of these razors which have up to five blades or whatever nowadays; they are items which are fairly small and which can be stolen easily, yet they are quite expensive—in a place where you must have human interaction to obtain the goods. That is a judgment that retailers simply make in their own interests. That is not something that they are required to do.

The point, of course, is that retailers will put in place what measures they think are necessary to ensure that they comply with the law. This bill does not require—and my honourable colleague did not suggest that it did—that there be a separate kiosk or serving area for knives. A retailer may choose that the best way they can comply with the law is to have knives being sold in a particular part of the store, or only by asking for a particular product, particularly for some of the larger butcher knives, or whatever.

A retailer might choose that those particular items be behind a counter, or whatever, just to ensure that they comply in the most optimum way with the bill. Again, that would be a matter for them. Retailers make these sorts of decisions all the time about how they are going to go about complying with the law and how they are going to go about effectively selling their goods.

As we have indicated, this exists in other jurisdictions, and I am not aware that the retail industry there has ground to a halt. These are the sorts of things which retailers need to comply with. Of course, as I said, assistance is normally given to them, and education; and often various dates will be prescribed so that they have adjustments, and so on. I do not think that retailers have an objection to complying with—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Yes they do.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: They may have an objection to the existence of particular laws, but they do not have an objection to the fact that, when parliament makes a decision to enact a particular statute, they will comply with it. I do not believe that any retailer has indicated that they will be conducting a campaign of civil disobedience. Really, I am not sure why this particular debate on this particular matter invites such extraordinary analysis of the minutiae of how it would work. In many instances when we talk about bills, I do not think we normally get into such detail about how it is going to work and ask 'What about self-serve checkouts?'

Ultimately, it is for the parliament to make a judgement about what laws are in the best interests of the state and are going to protect people, and ensure that they are, as much as possible, protected from knife-related crime. So that is what the parliament will do. Of course we want the bill to be workable and sensible, as I indicated before, but none of what honourable members have indicated at all indicates to me that the amendments they are proposing would make things simpler—it would make things more complicated.

Ultimately, again, we come back to the question: do you support this bill or not? If you do not (and you are entitled not to) and you think that you do not want to support measures to try to address knife-related crime on the supply side (as the Hon. Mr Wade would have it), as well as looking at matters of possession and so on, and if honourable members do not believe that this problem is sufficient to warrant a legislative response, that is a judgement they make and they can oppose the bill accordingly. We amend bills all the time and that is part of the normal legislative process, but if the purpose of amendments is simply to punch holes in the bill and to weaken its effect so that it becomes basically a meaningless piece of legislation, then that is not something the government is going to support.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I might take this opportunity, having listened to the debate, to put the Greens' position on the record. I think the Hon. Stephen Wade made the point in saying that the community is awash in cutlery—I think they were his words. We are, indeed, and we are awash with all manner of things. As the minister pointed out, sticks can be sharpened into weapons. I understand that in gaols (not that I have spent much time in gaols) toothbrushes can be turned into quite dangerous weapons with appropriate treatment.

Where I diverge from what the minister is saying is in the level of detail that it is appropriate for us to try to insert into this bill to attempt to fix its many errors. The minister can certainly say, 'Yes, in the fullness of time the bureaucracy will work on a list of exemptions that will perhaps have plastic knives and the bamboo knives that the Hon. Tammy Franks referred to. It will have a range of things in it and they will be adding'—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Foreshadowed.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Yes, foreshadowed regulations—they are not real yet. What we can do as a legislature is to point out at least one small area where we believe the risk is relatively low, notwithstanding that steak knives are, in fact, made for consumption of food and they can be dangerous, and they can also be exempted. However, the vast majority of knives that fall into that category (that is, for the consumption of food) are at the lower end of the risk spectrum. The level of inconvenience that this bill will cause the community, unless we take to it with sensible amendments, I think cannot be underestimated.

I appreciate the fact that my kids have all gone through Scouts and part of the exercise is that they do their own shopping. It is part of growing up and part of the Scout education. I am happy for my under 15s to go off with the Scouts and buy knives because the sort of knives they will be buying to use at their camp are not going to be dangerous. However, I do not think I should have to accompany them or make them jump through hoops in order to do it. Whilst this is only one minor fix up of a bill that is full of problems, I think that it is a reasonable response of this parliament to at least take off the table a range of knives which are overwhelmingly, but not entirely, safe and ought not be banned. The Greens are supporting the amendment.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I place on the record that Family First certainly supports this bill. There is no ambiguity from our party about that. We have supported a number of the amendments proposed by the Hon. Mr Wade because we feel that they are improvements to the bill. My sense is that there are the numbers, if you like, in the chamber at the moment to support this amendment so it will carry, anyway.

However, in going back to the specific wording of the bill, I am not satisfied that a clever lawyer could not use the phrase 'reasonable to infer that the knife was made for the consumption of food' and have that more broadly applied than even the Hon. Mr Wade intends—for instance, the examples I gave before for other types of knives. It could be inferred, for example, in my view not unreasonably, that a pocketknife could be used for an apple or something of that nature. For that reason, we will be opposing this particular amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I will be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: The Hon. Mr Parnell said that the regulations did not exist. Draft regulations have been made available to the opposition. If he has not had an opportunity—

The Hon. M. Parnell: No; the point was they are draft. They don't have bamboo in them.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Well, the regulations are indeed draft, but I think the government has made available the regulations we propose to promulgate after the passage of this legislation so that people are aware of exactly where we intend to go with it.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Just very briefly, I would indicate that, as I understand it, most, if not all, members did have access to the regulations. I commend the government. I thought it was a useful part of the process of consideration.

Amendment carried.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.