GRAFFITI CONTROL (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 13 June 2012.)

New clause 14.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thought it might be useful for the committee for me to clarify or correct a comment I made yesterday. I think I might have led the committee to believe that the only substantial difference between the two amendments (the opposition amendment and the government amendment) is that the opposition amendment includes consideration of the impact of licence disqualification.

On reflection, there is a more significant and perhaps an even fundamental difference, which I think means, shall we say, another difference between the two—although I strongly advocate the opposition amendment—that being the timing. I remind the committee that the committee has already agreed to a sunset clause operating from the fourth anniversary. The foreshadowed amendment by the government anticipates a review on the fifth anniversary.

It would be ludicrous to have a review after the sunset clause took effect. The opposition amendment, on the other hand, talks about a review being initiated at the third anniversary. If this place would want to be informed about the effectiveness of the laws before it considers the future face of the laws in four years' time, I might urge the committee to prefer the opposition amendment over the government's alternative.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government opposes this amendment. This amendment inserts a new section 14 into the bill to require the Attorney-General to undertake a review of the operation and impact of the act after three years. The government is not opposed to the inclusion of a review provision in the bill but believes that it should be after five years of operation, not three, to ensure that there are sufficient statistics available for a thorough consideration to be undertaken for the review.

What the government is particularly opposed to is new subsection (2) proposed by the amendment, which states that the review must include consideration of the effectiveness of sections 10A and 10B in reducing offending for prescribed graffiti offences. Graffiti is the type of offence for which there are generally low detection rates. Many incidents of graffiti vandalism are simply not reported to police, or they are reported to the council only for the purposes of cleaning.

It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to measure the effectiveness of sections 10A and 10B in reducing graffiti offending, as any statistics will be influenced by increases and decreases in the rate of detection. An increase in the rate of detection could result in an increase in the rate of offending and, conversely, if the rate of detection decreases, it could look as if there had been a reduction in offending.

This would not paint an accurate picture of how effective sections 10A and 10B may be in reducing graffiti. However, the government is happy to include a provision for a review of the operation and impact of the act after five years of operation and has filed an amendment to that end. I urge members to support the government's amendments and to oppose the Hon. Mr Wade's amendment. I move:

Page 7, after line 40—Insert:

14—Review of Act by Attorney-General

(1) The Attorney-General must cause a review of the operation and impact of this Act to be undertaken after the fifth anniversary of the commencement of this Act.

(2) A report on the results of the review must be submitted to the Attorney-General within 3 months after the fifth anniversary of the commencement of this Act.

(3) The Attorney-General must, within 12 sitting days after receiving the report under this section, cause copies of the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

This amendment inserts a provision for a review of the operation of the impact of the act after five years of operation.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I think the minister's response beautifully demonstrates the point the Hon. Tammy Franks was making in her comments. We are being asked to support this licence disqualification initiative without any evidence in an era when the public sector prides itself on having evidence based policy. But the government is taking that a step further. It is saying that not only is this policy not evidence based but that it does not believe evidence is possible. I find that incredible. The government provided data to me about the incidences of graffiti offending over years.

Even if one does not want to rely on criminal data, police data or, if you like, offending data, I would not have thought a bad indicator was how much councils are spending cleaning up the mess. I do not believe it is beyond the wit of a set of policymakers or academics to construct a useful review. I would urge this government—and I will be keeping this government to account—to make sure that in these early years (years 1 and 2) steps will be taken to put a review in place including collecting relevant data for the review.

It would be shameful for this parliament to be put in a situation where a hollow review is presented to it in a context of considering this sunset clause in four years' time. I urge honourable members to not be bluffed by the government and to trust the policymakers and the academics in that a credible review can be prepared. In fact, I think we should demand it. We should support the opposition amendment and not the government amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: It will not surprise the council that the Greens will be supporting the opposition amendment, not the government amendment. It does surprise me that the government has the gall not only to have no evidence base to introduce these measures but will not even have them reviewed because they are pretty sure that they will not be able to prove it with a review either.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: Yes, I will be supporting the opposition amendment, as well.

The committee divided on the Hon. Mr Wade's proposed new clause 14:

Majority of 5 for the ayes.

New clause thus inserted.

Bill reported with amendment.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Point of order: are we still in committee?

The PRESIDENT: No, we are finished; that is it.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I thought I could still make a comment in committee even if there are no clauses to consider.

The PRESIDENT: There are no clauses left.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I sought the call, Mr President; I thought I was entitled to make a comment in committee.

The PRESIDENT: I did not call you.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Sorry; I sought the call, I said.

The PRESIDENT: The committee stage is finished. You can say something on the third reading if you like.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: My point was that the minister indicated earlier in the debate—yesterday, the day before or whenever we considered it—that the government may be considering recommitting an earlier clause, and I was wanting to stand in committee to say that I think that this would be a good time to report progress—

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Excuse me; I have got the call—the point being that I think there was an opportunity on an earlier clause—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: If I wanted to get up and recommit something I would get up and recommit something.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: —to seek an agreeable amendment.

The PRESIDENT: If you wanted to recommit something you could have done that.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: What a control freak; you want to run the whole chamber!

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I can ask the—

The PRESIDENT: The committee stage is now finished. I have put the title and I am going to make the report. The bill, if it is agreed, will be read for the third time and passed.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: If I want to recommit something, I will recommit something; I do not need you to help me.

The PRESIDENT: Yes; it is the minister's bill. Minister: it is your bill.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (15:58): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Wade, you want to speak on what?

The Hon. S.G. WADE (15:59): I want to speak on the third reading of the bill, which is my right as a member of this council.

The PRESIDENT: Well, speak as a member of this council.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I express my disappointment that the government rapidly closed the committee stage when it had previously indicated—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Excuse me; I would like to finish my remarks.

The Hon. G.E. Gago: He is so full of himself!

The PRESIDENT: Get it right.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am disappointed that the government rapidly closed the committee stage and did not choose to recommit the earlier clause in relation to the specification of graffiti implements in the context of securing and sale to minors. Discussions between the opposition and the industry overnight have revealed that the government is indicating to the industry that the only items that they are intending to specify in the act are wide-tipped markers and spray cans. That is not too difficult to specify in the act, and we are disappointed that the government did not take the opportunity to recommit that clause and amend it accordingly.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:00): The Greens also echo disappointment in the lack of recommitting of that particular clause, as we did agree that graffiti implements should indeed be defined in the act. The government is much more interested in the rhetoric that it can get from a media conference that it is about to do on this bill about law and order, based on zero evidence and based on a complete unwillingness to actually review the success of whether or not taking away a young person's or an older person's driver's licence will in fact stop them from offending. This is an absolute joke. This government is a joke. It has not lost the law and order rhetoric of the last 10 years; it should be ashamed of itself because it is exploiting this issue for political gain. It is quite transparent from—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The government may have the numbers in the other place; they do not have the numbers this place, and they are not respecting democracy, just as they are not respecting young people in this particular bill. It has been a joke of a debate. It has had no evidence base to bring this before us, and it is yet another example of playing politics rather than policy. I would have hoped that the Weatherill government was better than that.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (16:01): Just a very quick comment from me. I want to clarify very quickly what happened at the last vote. Sir, as you are well aware, we had opposed the amendments put to this bill, but the last amendment actually sought to have a review after three years and, because the sunset clause was successful in an earlier debate, those provisions would be removed after four years. So, I saw no alternative but to support a review after three years, as opposed to five years.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Tourism, Minister for the Status of Women) (16:02): What a joke! The Greens are such a joke! Here we see the Greens supporting an amendment that is a complete nonsense amendment—it is unworkable. The Greens supported that amendment and now they get up at the third reading and whack the government for not bringing back a further amendment to unpick the mess they have supported. What an absolute joke. You're a joke, an absolute joke. They have supported something that is completely wrong, completely unworkable, and now they have the audacity to get up here and whack the government because they have joined up and supported a nonsense, unworkable amendment. The government will have to go away and somehow try to sort that out.

There are lots of ways we can sort it out, but they are an absolute joke and they have been shown to be the joke that they are. They are so proud of the work they do here—and now we have a piece of legislation that is unworkable, that will lock up toilet brushes, mops and dustpan brushes. They will all be locked up, and you will have to go in there and be supervised. And you have supported it, and Ann Bressington supported it as well. They are completely embarrassed now because they have put forward an irresponsible amendment—irresponsible. They have not thought it through.

We do not push through legislation here. If they wanted more time they could have reported progress. Did you hear them report progress? No, Mr President. They had as much time as they wanted. The opposition and minor parties had as much time as they wanted to deal with this piece of legislation in a responsible way. We never gag debate. If the opposition or any minor party had moved to report progress, we would have reported progress—it is as simple as that. But, no, they all sat there on their hands, supporting this nonsense amendment (or a series of them actually, but one in particular) and now they are embarrassed because we have a piece of legislation that is completely silly.

The Hon. Tammy Franks talks about selling out the young people. She has now helped deliver a nonsense piece of legislation that absolutely penalises young people. Minors can no longer go into hardware shops and buy a dust brush or a toilet brush, as it is highly likely that all these things will be locked up. She has talked about selling out young people. She is the one who has sold out young people with supporting this nonsense piece of really silly and unworkable legislation. They are embarrassed, and you can see that by their behaviour, and they should hang their heads in shame.

The council divided on the third reading:

Majority of 16 for the ayes.

Third reading thus passed.