Bills

Summary Offences (Knives and Other Weapons) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 6 February 2025.)

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (15:30): I rise today to speak on behalf of the Liberal opposition on the Summary Offences (Knives and Other Weapons) Amendment Bill 2025, introduced by the Attorney-General, the Hon. Kyam Maher, on 6 February 2025. This bill proposes critical amendments to the Summary Offences Act 1953 following the government's review of knife crime, mounting pressure from the opposition and public sentiment.

Knife crime has been on the rise, and the opposition has long called for comprehensive legislative reform to address this serious issue. On 30 October 2024, the shadow minister for community safety, police and correctional services, Mr Jack Batty MP, took the initiative by introducing the Summary Offences (Unlawful Selling of Knives) Amendment Bill 2024 as a private members bill. That bill made it an offence to sell a knife to anyone under the age of 18. We, the opposition, felt we had to do something because this government was doing nothing.

Clause 5 of the government's bill adopts this reform put forward by the shadow minister but, notably, removes exemptions for minors involved in lawful occupations, education or training. This is a stark departure from the Attorney-General's own remarks in a radio interview on 29 October 2024, when he stated that such exemptions were necessary. The government's sudden change of stance raises questions about the consistency, rationale and indeed lack of consideration and scrutiny behind its legislative approach.

Beyond this, this bill makes several other key amendments, largely aligned with proposals outlined in the government's discussion paper released six months ago. Key provisions of the bill include clause 6, which introduces new sections 21DA, DB and DC, namely, creating offences for supplying knives to minors who later commit offences, failing to display prohibition notices at points of sale, and failing to secure knives in retail premises, and clause 7, which expands the offence of carrying a knife in a public place or school to include childcare centres, preschools, universities and TAFE campuses. They also include clause 8, which amends section 21L to allow police to search individuals suspected—and not just known—to be subject to a weapons prohibition order, and clause 9, which inserts a new part 14C aimed at strengthening police search powers at events locations where public safety concerns are heightened. This includes:

division 2, which provides police with expanded search powers based on previous section 72B provisions;

division 3, which enhances these powers to include the use of metal detectors;

division 4, which allows for metal detector searches of individuals convicted of certain offences, former criminal organisation members and other prescribed persons;

division 5, which authorises metal detector searches at declared locations including shopping precincts, public transport hubs and licensed premises;

division 6, which empowers police to search vehicles entering or leaving these declared locations; and

divisions 7 and 8, which introduce offences for obstructing or failing to comply with lawful searches.

Clause 10 repeals now-redundant sections 72A, 72B and 72C, and, finally, clause 11 foreshadows the addition of machetes to a list of prohibited weapons, a reform the opposition has been also advocating for months.

This is long overdue reform. While we welcome the government's belated action on this issue, we must highlight the fact that these reforms should have been introduced much earlier. The opposition has repeatedly called for stricter knife crime laws, yet the government has only acted under increasing public and political pressure. The delay in implementing these reforms has left communities vulnerable to continued knife-related violence. We therefore propose an amendment to the bill's commencement date to ensure that the majority of these provisions take effect immediately upon assent rather than awaiting proclamation. Given the urgency of the knife crime crisis, there is no justification for further delays in enforcing these protections. I note there is a carve-out in this amendment for the retail industry, allowing them time to adjust as necessary.

Public safety must be our highest priority. This bill introduces necessary reforms, many of which the opposition has long championed. We will support this legislation, but we will continue to hold the government accountable for its delays in acting on this critical issue, and we urge all members to support our amendment to expedite these measures and ensure that South Australians are protected without unnecessary bureaucratic delay.

I also acknowledge the amendment from the Hon. Ms Bonaros and am pleased to inform the chamber that she has the support of the opposition. I also acknowledge the amendment from the Hon. Frank Pangallo and am also pleased to inform the chamber that, whilst I have a question or two on his amendment, broadly we are supportive of that amendment as well.

Let us not allow politics to stand in the way of protecting our communities. The time for action is now, and in doing so we commend the amendment bill to the chamber.

The Hon. S.L. GAME (15:37): I rise to make a contribution to the government's Summary Offences (Knives and Other Weapons) Amendment Bill. Broadly speaking, this bill aims to expand police powers to conduct wanding searches in public places plus strengthen laws around the storage of knives in retail outlets and supplying knives to minors. Overall, it aims to reduce the incidence of knife crime in South Australia by reducing the number of knives on the street.

Naturally, I support measures that make innocent South Australians safer, and without doubt this package of reforms will achieve that. However, before rubberstamping this amendment I wish to outline some facts about South Australia's existing laws, particularly in comparison to other states. Last year, I spoke to Brett Beasley from Queensland. He and his wife, Belinda, are behind the Jack Beasley Foundation and ultimately the creation of Jack's Law.

Jack's Law came about following the death of the couple's 17-year-old son, Jack, who was fatally stabbed in Surfers Paradise in 2019. Jack's family and friends, including his parents, came together to form the foundation with the aim of saving other families from enduring the same horrific experience. The family made it their mission to beef up Queensland's knife laws, and after much lobbying and hard work Jack's Law, as it was called, was passed in early 2023.

Jack's Law had immediate results, which I will detail shortly, but such was the positive effect of the new legislation Mr Beasley in particular was keen to ensure other states have similar protections. Backed by police his movement had success with the New South Wales government and most recently with the West Australian government.

After speaking to Mr Beasley my office set about comparing Queensland's laws and Queensland's knife statistics with those of South Australia. The statistics we found, which we obtained via freedom of information, the Jack Beasley Foundation and a senior Queensland police officer, were extraordinary, but nothing prepared us for some left-field information that brings into question how South Australian police have been employing—or not—existing knife laws at their disposal.

In the 2023-24 financial year in Queensland, 53,619 people were subjected to the use of handheld scanners, compared to just 1,078 people in South Australia. From those scans Queensland police seized 510 knives or edged weapons, while South Australian police seized just 30 knives. We checked with Queensland police, read the legislation and double-checked with our own parliamentary counsel and established that currently South Australian police have similar powers as their Queensland counterparts and we have written evidence of this.

So, while we welcome the new raft of knife laws, the obvious question is: why the discrepancy? Why has this broken down? The obvious take-home message is that we can give our officers all the powers in the world, but they need to be empowered to use them.

In supporting this amendment, we trust the government ensures all officers on the beat and on the street are aware of their powers and are aware of how and when to use them, are physically armed to enact those powers, and know with zero uncertainty that they have the full support of SAPOL and the government to do so, because if that is not the case, the current scourge of knife crime and lives needlessly lost will continue in South Australia. I will be watching this closely and revisiting that data, looking and hoping to see a significant reduction in the number of knife crimes in South Australia.

The Hon. J.S. LEE (15:40): I rise to speak in support of the Summary Offences (Knives and Other Weapons) Amendment Bill 2025. With an increasing incidence of knife crime reported across Australia and South Australia, it is a critical time that law reforms aimed at addressing knife crime and prohibiting the sale of knives to minors are enacted.

The Bondi Junction Shopping Centre stabbing rampage in April 2024 shocked us all. Every Australian can see themselves in those victims. There was a new mother on an outing with her baby, a refugee security guard only a week into his new job, the daughter of a wealthy family excited about her wedding planning, an international student enjoying her retail therapy after exams, and parents who never went home to their kids. It is such a frightening, confronting and heartbreaking experience for so many.

Closer to home, it was reported that machetes and batons were allegedly brandished by teenagers before the lockdown of Westfield Marion Shopping Centre in June last year, followed by the stabbing of a teenager with serious injuries at Elizabeth Shopping Centre. Mobile phone footage of the incident shows several teenagers fighting, with three of them carrying knives.

While I am glad to see that the government has finally introduced a bill, with a strong push from the opposition, our community is wondering why it has taken so long for the government to bring about these reforms, especially when community members, business owners and law enforcement agencies have repeatedly called for additional measures to tackle knife crime, which has been increasing over 15 per cent year on year.

The bill presents a suite of changes, including banning the sale of knives to all minors and making it unlawful to supply a knife to a minor if there is a reasonable suspicion that it will be used in an offence. I understand that the opposition has previously called for exemptions that would allow minors to purchase knives for the lawful pursuit of occupation, education or training. From the briefing I received from the government, I understand that such exemptions were not supported by the retail industry due to concerns that exemptions would cause confusion and place the onus on retail staff to decide whether a minor is exempt from the ban or not. Simply banning the sale of knives to all those under 18 seeks to avoid any confusion and provides clarity for retail workers.

The bill also creates a new requirement for safe storage of certain types of knives at retail premises and expands the existing offence of carrying a knife in a school or public place to apply to educational facilities including childcare centres, preschools, primary and secondary schools, universities, TAFEs and other tertiary education campuses. I believe these are all sensible reforms that will help our community become a safer place. I understand that the Hon. Frank Pangallo also would like to include places of worship and I would like to indicate my support for his amendment.

I turn my attention now to the increased powers afforded to police in the bill. The bill would expand the ability of a police officer to scan people for weapons by using electronic metal detectors at certain declared events and places, including licenced premises, public places holding a declared public event, declared public transport hubs, declared public transport vehicles, declared shopping precincts, at any public place where there is a likelihood of violence or disorder involving weapons, and at any time on a person in a public place if they have been found guilty of certain offences in the last five years or have been a member of a declared criminal organisation.

These are quite significant expansions of existing police search powers. It will also be an offence to refuse or fail to comply with a requirement or direction made under this part of the act, with a maximum penalty of $2,500 or six months in prison. I understand that existing safeguards have been replicated in this bill and that declarations must be published on the police commissioner's website before the commencement of the declaration period.

There are a number of criteria that the commissioner must be satisfied with to make and maintain a declaration, including that the exercise of search powers will not unduly affect lawful activity in the area. I would like to see that police are cognisant of the impact these additional search powers may have on members of culturally and linguistically diverse communities, who may have difficulty understanding why they are being searched with a wand metal detector in a public place.

We expect to go through security screening and searches when we go to the airport and other locations with high security like this place, but it will be a new experience for many to be wanded at a shopping centre or at a train station. If police are searching every person boarding or exiting a bus, that would be understandable, but if, for example, police were randomly searching visitors in a major shopping centre or Rundle Mall, would they feel targeted or be embarrassed by these types of random searching techniques?

The commissioner must also ensure that existing procedures and safeguards are upheld and are sufficient to reduce the risk of people from migrant and refugee communities feeling singled out or unduly targeted by metal detector searches while going about their daily lives. I am also pleased to see that swords and machetes will be added to the list of prohibited weapons in the regulations, as requested by SAPOL, making it an offence to possess them without an exemption.

In line with this, a new exemption category will be created for machetes used for gardening and camping purposes only. As somebody who has occasionally used a machete to participate in harvesting maize with African community members at various festivals, I am very glad that this exemption has been clearly outlined in the bill to ensure that such cultural practices, gardening purposes or other legitimate uses are not impacted.

I understand that SAPOL were closely involved in the consultation and the drafting of these reforms and that significant public consultation was undertaken by the government to ensure that the legislation balances civil liberties and community safety. I will consider all the other amendments during the debate. With those remarks, I commend the bill.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (15:47): I will not be long. I just wanted to express my disappointment in the government in the way they have rushed this legislation through. We only received briefings about it last week, and it has not really been able to stand and be scrutinised by other stakeholders. Contrary to what the Hon. Jing Lee has just said, there are many stakeholders who are not happy that they have not had much time to consider this legislation.

While it is welcome—and of course something needs to be done to ensure that we do not see incidents like what happened at Bondi—one would have expected that the government would have at least allowed other members in this place to spend some time analysing it, to go back to stakeholders and to have a good chance to assess the legislation to see if it can be improved, and if there are some oversights in there. But, no, the Malinauskas government and the Attorney-General love pounding their chests about cracking down on crime. Here is another example of where they are going.

I do have some amendments to this bill and, again, I apologise to other members in this place that they have not had enough time to really consider them simply because the government did not give us much time ourselves to consider its own legislation. In fact, my staff are often told, 'You better get your motions and amendments in quickly and with a lot of time,' just so the government can consider it, but of course when it comes to their own legislation, those rules do not apply.

I want to refer to the views of the Law Society. In this place over the years that I have been in here, we welcomed and sought the views of the Law Society when it came to legislation, particularly controversial or contentious legislation, but even the Law Society has been caught out here; they have not had much time to consider what has been going on here. I just wonder why the Attorney-General seems to give them short shrift. To outline the views of the Law Society, I will seek leave to table the letter that they sent to the Hon. Kyam Maher on 17 February 2025, which gives you an indication of how rushed they were in trying to get something to the Attorney-General before debate started today. I will seek leave to table that document and then I will refer to it.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Firstly, on stakeholder consultation, the Law Society's concerns are that the draft bill was not adequately discussed with stakeholders before being tabled in parliament. I even had a call late last week from a representative of retailers who were disappointed that they were not able to be heard. The Law Society says it emphasises that reforms must be proportionate and backed by evidence, and they warn against further criminalising or disproportionately impacting children and young people.

As for the supply of knives to minors, the society says that it questions the broad interpretation of 'supply' and 'knife', which may criminalise legitimate conduct. They also criticise the high penalties, which is up to four years' imprisonment, and the tiered offence structure. But, again, this is the government wanting to show how tough they are on crime, even though perhaps the courts never interpret it as such.

The Law Society goes on to suggest reconsidering the mental element requirement, favouring a simpler knowledge standard to avoid unintended applications. As for expanded police search powers, the society criticises the removal of the reasonable suspicion requirement, fearing it could lead to over policing.

They raise concerns about the potential for these powers to be misused, particularly in declared public areas and other newly defined zones. They also point out the risk that these measures could disproportionately affect marginalised communities, rural areas and individuals with legitimate reasons for carrying metal items; for example, metal implants and rural residents.

As for the impact on vulnerable groups, the Law Society express concern over the cumulative effect of the new offence provisions and search powers on children, rural communities and individuals relying on knives for legitimate purposes. It also notes the risk of undermining young people's ability to use knives responsibly for work or recreation, particularly where independent minors are involved.

As for a recommendation for further review, the society suggests referring the bill to a select committee for a more comprehensive examination of its impacts and adequacy of existing legal frameworks. I really do not know why the government has not considered spending a little bit more time on this, rather than trying to rush the whole thing through just to appease its own interests.

I will acknowledge the work the opposition has done, particularly the member for Bragg, Jack Batty, who has raised this issue in light of crimes that have been committed in the state and elsewhere. It certainly was something they campaigned hard for and they had to drag the government to the trough to finally see that this was required.

As I said, it is disappointing that not enough time has been spent on ensuring that this is good legislation and does not have any unintended consequences, which already the Law Society has indicated they could well be. This place probably will have to deal with changes to this act somewhere down the track.

As a summary of the amendment I am seeking, it is to further strengthen the government's proposed changes to the Summary Offences Act by expanding the offences of possessing knives or weapons in public places and education facilities to include places of worship. To complement this we propose an expansion of police powers to conduct metal detector searches to also cover these places of worship. This ensures, particularly in the current climate, that a consistent approach to public safety across all high-risk areas is assured.

I do not need to remind members as they can recall the terrorist incident in Sydney in April last year, where a priest was stabbed in the Assyrian church. That was considered a terrorist incident. Places of worship are just as much at risk as are places in the community, like retail outlets, shopping malls, etc. I could even say that in the current climate, particularly the antisemitism climate that is prevailing, sadly, in our communities, particularly in Melbourne and Sydney, places of worship are more at risk than other places.

As I pointed out, there was the incident in the Assyrian church in April last year, where the bishop was stabbed in the eye—luckily he was not killed—by a 16 year old. Let us not forget that there were two major shootings in mosques—places of worship of course is what they are. There were two major shootings in New Zealand in 2019. I hope members see the merit in these amendments. With that, I look forward to the debate.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (15:57): I rise to speak on this bill on behalf of the Greens. In so doing I make very clear that peace and nonviolence is one of the four pillars of the Greens political party. We condemn all forms of violence. Violent crime, knife crime, really should have no place in our society and our state. I recognise the significant distress these crimes have on members of our community and the need to manage that behaviour and ensure there is appropriate criminal sanction.

It is my view that the law does already have significant penalties in place, however, for this kind of offending, and I worry that some of the legislative approaches we are seeing from the Malinauskas government of late are moving us back into the populist law and order years that we saw during the Rann era, where what the government seems to be focusing on in the law and order space is populist politics, winning news headlines but not actually tackling the root causes of crime.

If the government is genuinely concerned about young people participating in criminal activity, and in particular knife crime, then when will it come to the parliament with a clear strategy to deal with the fundamental causes of crime? Why does it instead keep focusing on penalties, when we know from all of the evidence over the years that harsher penalties simply do not work in terms of dealing with the causes of crime and making our societies safer?

These sorts of laws are really good for getting newspaper headlines, but they do not necessarily do anything to make our streets safer, and they certainly do not do anything to address the social factors that might be leading young people, in particular, down a pathway of criminality. I just urge the government to do better when it comes to policy in this space.

The Hon. Frank Pangallo has addressed the submission from the Law Society. I do not intend to go through all of that again, but there are a few elements that I think are worth highlighting from the perspective of the Greens' contribution. I note that in the Law Society's letter to the Hon. Kyam Maher, the Attorney, dated 17 February, their submission to this bill, they note or question the pace at which these reforms are being progressed and suggest that a more fulsome consideration of their impact could be conducted, such as referring the bill to a select committee of the Legislative Council to consider the bill and related issues.

I do wonder why the government has not sent this through to the Legislative Review Committee so that there would an opportunity to consider how this bill might interact with other criminal law that we have in our state. It does worry me that once again this chamber is being asked to legislate without being cognisant of the potential implications.

One of the issues the Law Society talks about here is the broad definition of a knife, the fact that a knife includes a blade. For example, this could be a razor blade. This is a quote from their submission:

9. The Society notes the importance that is to be placed on the practical interpretation of 'supply' for the purposes of both proposed offences and whether that extends to merely making the knife available to the minor, such as by not locking it away. The definition of 'knife' for the relevant part of the Act is broad, being:

Knife includes a blade (for example a knife blade or razor blade)

10. The possible application of proposed section 21D(2)(b), despite its less significant penalty, is concerning. Notwithstanding the important policy considerations to prevent minors being supplied with knives, the offence provision should be carefully considered noting in particular, the broad definition of 'knife' and the range of circumstances in which the offence provision in existing section 21E could be enlivened.

11. The Society briefly notes the significance of the four-year penalty, which is considerable for the Act, noting that only three other provisions have commensurate penalties, being in relation to weapons prohibition orders, as well as the distribution of invasive images, and indecent filming. It is also notable that those offences are committed by the principal offender rather than a third party. Further, Members of the Society's Children and the Law Committee briefly noted the reference that the person 'knew or reasonably ought to have known' as per paragraph 7 above to enliven the offence. The Society queries whether the mental element that attaches to the offence (particularly proposed section 21D(2)(b)) should be simply 'knowledge' and that a person supplies a knife knowing it will be used in the commission of an offence. This is particularly so given the fact that the definition of 'supply' (as per paragraph 9 above) remains uncertain, noting the offence may be enlivened in a range of circumstances where a minor might merely have access to a knife.

This broad definition is concerning to me. Is there the potential to capture a range of conduct that the government may not necessarily have within its contemplation? I do intend to ask a few questions about that in the committee stage.

The point that the Hon. Frank Pangallo touched on, that the Law Society raised, I also think is a fair one, and that is about the potential implications of a bill like this for young people working in regional areas or being in regional areas who might be going on a fishing trip, for instance, and have a fishing knife on their person. Again, there are a lot of scenarios that I am concerned have not been appropriately considered. Indeed, as noted by the Law Society in their submission, and I quote:

30. …there may be numerous personal reasons why young people may not have adults that can purchase knives for them. The Society's Children and the Law Committee understands there is a significant number of young people that live independently by the age of 16 years and not all youth can rely on an adult to purchase a knife, which in many cases may be a necessity for living independently or partaking in [a range of] activities. A further reluctance might stem from public awareness as to the reforms described … which may render an adult even less likely to provide knives for young people even if they are likely to use them for legitimate purposes, especially where the person is not their responsible guardian.

31. While well-intentioned, the reforms take a position which does not give due consideration to the fact that the vast majority of young people between the ages of 16 and 18 years are trying to enter the adult world and are not intending to commit crimes.

Indeed, this is the worry I have with laws like this, in that what they tend to do is stigmatise young people, in particular vulnerable young people in our community. When we are talking about giving police new powers to target particular groups, we know the young people who will be targeted. We know based on what has happened in law enforcement in our state over many years. It is going to be First Nations children who get targeted by these sorts of laws disproportionately, or other young people who are deemed to look suspicious. That really worries me. These sorts of laws, I think, tie into a stigmatisation of young people in our society, and can actually alienate young people and lead them to be more likely to commit offences in the long term.

I note that there has been some debate about similar—not exactly the same, but similar—laws in Queensland. The Queensland Council for Civil Liberties has expressed some concerns regarding the way in which those laws operate, and I think it is worth highlighting some of those concerns because they apply similarly to the legislation we are debating here in this parliament.

The Queensland Council for Civil Liberties said of similar legislation there that these laws abrogate a fundamental protection of individual liberty by removing the requirement for police officers to have a reasonable suspicion prior to conducting a search of a person, and they note their concern that the power could be abused by police officers who will search people based on prejudices and generalisations about people in the community. They also expressed concern that pressure will come to expand these powers, and this has already happened. Originally, the measure was to be used only in safe night precincts. It has been extended to public transport, it has been extended to shopping centres and recreations, and they note that there will be pressure to extend the laws to other areas.

The Queensland Council for Civil Liberties also notes there was a review of the initial trial of these powers by Griffith University, and no evidence was found in that study that the searches enabled by the legislation had actually reduced offences. In particular, the Griffith University review found that during the trial, of the many people who were searched, they were searched due to police racial bias; i.e., it noted in particular that Indigenous people were searched disproportionately. This worries me when we are making law that has such wide-ranging consequences, and these elements are not being given appropriate consideration by government.

I note that a number of members have filed amendments. I will listen to the debate in terms of forming a position on those. I think it is worth noting, and the Hon. Frank Pangallo touched on this point, I would just encourage members, particularly of the two large parties in this place—I understand they have their party room meetings on Tuesday morning or a Monday afternoon and that amendments may be filed soon after that—that it would be very helpful for the crossbench to get advance notice of amendments, particularly when they relate to this level of complexity. I only saw the amendments early this afternoon. It does make it difficult to be able to engage with stakeholders and form a view.

I note the Hon. Connie Bonaros has filed amendments to expand this principle somewhat. I am concerned about how that might work in a retail setting, for instance, and so I am certainly not supportive of that amendment, but I will hear the honourable member's explanation of the amendment, obviously when we get to the committee stage.

As I indicated, I will have a few questions to ask of the government in the hope that they may allay some of my concerns. However, from my perspective, this seems to be more about a race to the bottom between Labor and the Liberals when it comes to law and order rather than actually addressing the root causes of crime in our society. I would really like to see the Malinauskas government start to do some work in that area rather than continuing to engage with this race to the bottom with the Liberals on law and order.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:10): I rise to speak on the Summary Offences (Knives and Other Weapons) Amendment Bill, which strengthens laws around the possession, sale and regulation of knives in South Australia. I think we have all seen the discussion from both major parties in relation to this issue. This government has declared quite proudly that this bill will introduce the toughest knife laws in the country.

For those members who have been here long enough, I was trying to refer back to the last time that we saw these laws changed in this jurisdiction. From memory, there was a horrific event in the city that involved groups of young teenagers and one of them, having left an altercation, went to the mall, picked up a knife from a supermarket, headed back to the group and killed the victim. I actually looked for it on my phone while I was sitting here, and I tried this last week too, but there are so many stabbing and knife stories each and every day here and elsewhere that I could not actually find that one. So this is not a new issue; I guess that is the point I am trying to make. It is an issue that has been around for a long time.

I have to say at the outset, before I focus my remarks today on something that I will deal with by way of amendment and an issue that I think goes to the heart of accessibility and community safety, whilst I do not agree with everything the Hon. Rob Simms has said, what I do agree with is our failure and inability to deal with the root causes of these issues, the systemic failures and the social issues that result in such rampant knife crime. That is an unfortunate set of affairs that has existed for a long time and plagued us all for a long time.

I, too, like the Hon. Rob Simms, remain hopeful that at some point we are actually going to get serious about addressing those underlying issues, social issues and systemic issues that lead to this sort of offending. I guess it raises the question also that we ban guns, we ban knives and what are we banning next? That is not to say that these laws are not necessary, but it does point to the fact that we are not really doing a good job of dealing with those underlying issues.

I will focus the rest of my comments on the amendments that I seek to move now rather than during the committee stage. The bill raises the minimum legal age for purchasing a knife from 16 to 18, and that aligns with Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia. However, unlike other states, the bill provides no exceptions, ensuring that the responsibility of determining eligibility does not fall on the young person selling the knife.

If we accept that a person under 18 should not be able to buy a knife then it must follow that we also accept that they should not be responsible for selling one, and that is at the heart of the amendment that I will be seeking to move. The amendment will restrict the sale of knives to workers aged 18 and over, just as we do with alcohol. As we know, young retail workers, often as young as 14, are working at the checkout of supermarkets and retail stores. It is not reasonable to expect them to be the ones enforcing knife sale restrictions, checking ID and refusing sales when necessary, and it is not just the legal compliance issue, it is a workplace safety issue for those young people who work in those sectors. No minor should be put in a position where they have to challenge someone of a similar age or older—whatever the case may be—over the purchase of a knife.

I note that in South Australia right now those under 16—and thank you to the Attorney, I thought it was 18—cannot legally sell tobacco products, and it is strongly discouraged for those under 18 to do so due to the difficulties in refusing sales. If we apply this logic to tobacco in this instance it should certainly apply to knives, only more stringently.

I have ensured the amendment includes a carve-out, of course, allowing for exemptions by regulation, recognising that a blanket restriction on under-18s selling knives will have unintended consequences and difficulties. This is particularly the case for small businesses and regional businesses; for the fishing tackle store in Port MacDonnell where dad might be at the back fixing a boat and the young son or daughter is at the counter when someone comes in wanting to buy a fishing knife, and they are the only ones on duty.

There are a hundred different examples we can give where there ought to be those sorts of exemptions, and they are really designed to provide flexibility where needed while maintaining strong protections in higher risk retail environments. It should not extend to major shopping centres or large retailers where an adult should always be available to oversee such sales, as they are with tobacco and with alcohol.

I do think this strikes a fair balance between practicality for small businesses and the overarching goal of strengthening our knife sale laws. No one is suggesting, by any stretch, that we should penalise young people through the amendments but, during the committee stage, I note now that I will also be seeking clarification on several aspects of this bill from the Attorney, including the definition of a knife and the application of these laws to online sales.

I note that the National Retail Association has gone as far as preparing what is a 20-odd page document that runs through all the different laws that exist across jurisdictions, all jurisdictions. It is becoming somewhat of a complicated area in the absence of any national consistency, as well, and in light of the growing trend to shop online.

As I said, the bill does take that strong step towards addressing knife-related crime and public safety concerns, but if you want the strongest knife laws in the country then we have to ensure they are practical, enforceable and fair to young workers. That is my main objective through these amendments, and in this bill. I urge the government to consider those carefully when we get to them.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (16:17): I rise to speak in support of the Summary Offences (Knives and Other Weapons) Amendment Bill 2025. This bill brought to mind three recent tragedies that all involved the violent use of knives, which also share a common thread about the importance of public safety in communal public spaces.

The Bondi Junction stabbings on 13 April 2024 tragically involved six people being fatally stabbed and 10 others suffering injuries. In June 2024, at the Westfield Marion shopping centre in Adelaide, we witnessed a fight between a group of young males, some reportedly armed, leading to a lockdown of the shopping centre. While no fatalities were reported, the chaos on that day caused significant distress amongst shoppers and staff.

In South Plympton in December, a supermarket worker was injured during an attempted robbery on Marion Road. The offender, armed with a knife, attacked the employee by while trying to steal groceries. Another recent stabbing involved a 13-year-old who randomly stabbed a 63-year-old shop assistant in the back, leaving her critically injured. This horrific stabbing occurred in a Coles supermarket in Ipswich, Queensland, I believe, while the woman was going about her duties at work.

Collectively these incidents highlight how critical our rapid response strategies and security measures are for handling violence outbreaks in public spaces. South Australia is leading the nation in regard to strong knife laws, with reforms being brought in by the 2012 Labor government regarding the prohibition of the sale of knives to minors under 16 and banning the marketing of knives that suggest using them as a form of combat. Further changes in 2017 were made about police conducting metal searches, and the reforms in this bill have been guided by further consultation and feedback from the public and targeted stakeholders such SAPOL.

We want and expect to feel safe in the public spaces we share on a day-to-day basis. The proposed changes to knife and weapon laws will be another step towards achieving this. In brief, this bill allows the police to use metal detectors on public transport, such as buses and trains; in stations; in shopping centres; and in places that sell alcohol. It expands police powers so that they can also search anyone with a metal detector in public places where violence or trouble is likely, including searching gang members or people at any time who have a history of weapon-related violence.

It introduces stricter knife sales rules by increasing the minimum age to buy a knife from 16 to 18 years, with no exceptions. It stipulates that places, both physical and online, that sell knives must store them safely and display warnings about illegal use. It creates two new offences in clause 6. It will become a crime to sell a knife to a minor if the seller knows or should have known that the minor might use the knife for a serious violent crime, with a penalty of a $35,000 fine or four years' imprisonment. The second offence is unlawful possession in a public space, with a $10,000 fine or six months' imprisonment.

The bill prescribes that carrying a knife in a way that could scare someone will be illegal at more locations, including childcare centres, preschools, kindergartens, and university and TAFE campuses.

Furthermore the bill includes making amendments in anticipation of the prescribing of swords as prohibited weapons by regulation, meaning they will be subject to more strict laws around their use and possession. In anticipation of the stricter prescription of machetes as prohibited weapons, an exemption to the prohibited weapons offences for gardening and camping purposes will apply only to machetes, as requested by SAPOL. Once swords have been prescribed as prohibited weapons by the regulations it will be an offence to possess them without an exemption.

Any improved enforcement that aims to reduce violence and crime will lead to people feeling safer and more secure in public spaces. This bill gives people greater peace of mind. We know that tougher laws and improved enforcement can only help to reduce violence and crime. We must continue to protect the public and promote safer communities. I commend this bill to the chamber.

The Hon. M. EL DANNAWI (16:24): I rise to speak in support of the knives and other weapons amendment bill. In the last few years there have been several high-profile knife crimes that have drawn a large amount of media attention and community concern. I am sure everyone remembers the week last year when there were five unrelated stabbing attacks across Sydney, including at Bondi Junction.

In South Australia, we have also seen some shocking attacks in the last few years. In 2023, Julie Seed and Susan Scardigno suffered a random knife attack in Plympton that tragically took Julie's life. Queensland and New South Wales have both acted in recent years to introduce stronger laws in relation to knives, and other states have indicated that they will be reconsidering their legislation too.

Since Australia banned guns in the nineties, the number of homicides committed with knives has increased. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that from 2010 to 2023 the most common weapon used in homicides was a knife. South Australia already has strong knife laws, introduced by the 2012 government; however, following recent incidents this government prepared a discussion paper for public consultation to ensure that our laws were as tough as possible. The reforms in this bill will see South Australia with the most comprehensive knife laws in the country.

As a result of that consultation, which included family members of victims of knife crime and those who have survived knife attacks, public stakeholders and SAPOL, the bill makes a number of changes to the current laws. I will discuss a few of the most impactful changes today.

Firstly, the bill expands the police search powers. The Commissioner of Police will have new powers to authorise police search powers in specified public places if there are reasonable grounds to believe that an incident of violence or disorder may take place there and that these search powers are necessary to prevent the incident. Authorisation will be limited to no longer than six hours.

Police officers would be empowered to conduct searches of any person who is in, or is apparently attempting to enter or leave, the specified place, and any property they may have on them. A police officer will also be authorised to conduct wanding of any person in any place so declared by the commissioner. Places subject to declaration are all licenced premises, 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, and a public transport vehicle providing a declared public transport service.

Criteria must be satisfied before the commissioner can make a declaration that the place is subject to police wanding. Before a declaration is made, 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.

Declarations of shopping precincts, public transport hubs and transport services will be in effect until revoked by the police commissioner. They must be revoked when the commissioner is no longer satisfied of the criteria.

Police officers will also be authorised to conduct wanding of any person who has within the last five years been found guilty of an offence of violence or has been a member of a criminal organisation. Before conducting the search, the police officer must provide the person with information, including the grounds for the search and the effect of noncompliance. If the person requests, the identification of the police officer must be provided.

The bill also makes several changes to address the issue of young people carrying knives. Last year, the ABC reported that young people were significantly overrepresented when it comes to who is being charged with violent knife crimes. Currently, the age of sale to purchase a knife is 16, with reasonable exemptions for plastic and wooden cutlery and shaving equipment. This bill will raise the age of lawful sale of knives to 18.

The bill will also make it an offence to supply a knife to a minor where they know or should have known that the minor was likely to use the knife to commit a serious offence of violence or an offence of unlawful possession in a public place. Minors who require a knife for any purpose, for example if they are training in a kitchen, will need to have an adult employer or training provider supply the knife to them. The bill also requires that certain types of knives must be subject to storage requirements at both brick-and-mortar and pop-up stalls. The bill also requires that a prohibition notice be displayed at any retail premises selling knives, be it a brick-and-mortar store or an online retailer.

When high-profile knife crimes receive extensive media coverage, it can start to feel like dangerous crime is on the rise and it is easy to get scared. It is important to remember that this is not the case. ABS data demonstrates that overall crime across Australia has been steadily declining since 2009. Crimes in which knives are commonly used, such as attempted murder and armed robberies, have fallen since 2004.

It is true that we have seen some horrifying incidences of knife crime in South Australia, and that people have suffered greatly because of those attacks. Some have even tragically lost their lives. While the numbers show that those crimes are outliers, these laws are designed to make sure that those outlier attacks that cause harm, tragedy and panic are prevented. I commend the bill to the chamber.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (16:30): I rise in support of the Summary Offences (Knives and Other Weapons) Amendment Bill 2025. There is little that is more important to the quality of the human experience than safety. Both a felt sense of safety and a reality that reflects lived conditions of safety are highly influential to our wellbeing. Governments bear a significant responsibility to the public to ensure and to promote safety through the means that are available to them, and ensuring safety for South Australians is one of the foremost priorities of the Malinauskas government.

South Australia has maintained strong knife crime laws for a long period of time, in particular following a range of reforms that were implemented by the Rann and Weatherill governments. This government seeks to continue and expand upon that legacy. The reforms proposed in this bill aim to deliver the most comprehensive knife laws in the nation. These reforms build upon a strong foundation and have been informed by consultation feedback that arose from public consultation, targeted stakeholder engagement, and particularly from consultation with SAPOL.

In considering this range of reforms, it is worth noting that there are three categories of weapons in South Australia's criminal law, the first being offensive weapons. Currently, it is an offence to carry an offensive weapon without lawful excuse. Under existing provisions, a knife is classed as an offensive weapon, as are swords, guns and pistols, for example. The only knife that has so far been declared a dangerous article under our laws is a gas-injected device, including a WASP injection knife. There are strict rules around possession of these devices.

Some knives are also classified as prohibited weapons, such as daggers, flick-knives and ballistic knives. There is no defence or lawful excuse for possessing or selling a prohibited weapon, unless for an exempt person such as a police officer. Briefly, the changes that the bill before us proposes include:

expanding police metal detector search powers on declared public transport vehicles, at public transport hubs, at shopping centres, and all licensed premises;

expanding police metal detector search powers at any public place where there is a likelihood of violence or disorder;

expanding police metal detector search powers in relation to any person with a relevant history of weapon-related violence or who is a member of a declared criminal organisation;

increasing the age for purchasing knives from 16 to 18 years, with no exceptions;

requiring the safe storage of knives for sale and the displaying of prohibition notices across both brick-and-mortar and online premises;

creating a new offence for supplying a knife to a minor if the supplier knew, or reasonably ought to have known, that the minor intended to or was likely to use the knife in the commission of an offence;

expanding offences for carrying and using knives in a manner likely to cause a reasonable person to fear for safety from schools to a broadened environment of 'education facilities', which will include childcare centres, preschools, kindergartens and, indeed, any place at which an approved learning program was undertaken within the meaning of the Education and Children's Services Act 2019, as well as universities and TAFE campuses;

making amendments in anticipation of prescribing swords as a prohibited weapon by regulation, meaning they will be subject to more strict laws in relation to their use and possession; and

anticipation of the stricter prescriptions of machetes as prohibited weapons, creating an exemption to the prohibited weapons offences for gardening and camping purposes, which will apply only to machetes, as per the request of SAPOL.

The reforms before us give consideration to items within each of the three categories of weapon, and where appropriate seek to adjust the classification of certain weapons, increasing the level of seriousness with which swords and machetes in particular are regarded, except where appropriate exemptions apply.

These efforts towards reform aim to illustrate that it is possible to succeed in enhancing community safety by keeping knives out of the wrong hands, as well as to succeed in strengthening the effectiveness of our laws in this important area without creating difficulty for persons who legitimately have a need to possess, carry or use knives that are offensive weapons for a legitimate purpose, which constitutes a lawful excuse, or persons who are exempt pursuant to schedule 2 of the Summary Offences Act for knives that are prohibited weapons. I commend the work of all those who assisted in the development of these reforms, including SAPOL and the Commissioner of Police. I commend this bill to the chamber.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (16:36): I thank all members for their contribution—some I thank more than others. This is an important bill designed and squarely aimed at the safety of the community. I might, for the benefit of members, as we progress to the committee stage, let members know the government's initial views—and of course we will listen to contributions made—about the amendments that are being filed.

In relation to the amendments that the opposition has filed to commence upon assent certain sections of the bill, we will support this being progressed to the lower house but I want to put a caveat on that that we will need to do some further work to make sure there are not unintended consequences of commencing some sections earlier. For example, some of the sections allow police greater powers to conduct wanding metal detection searches need regulations made about previous offences that that applies to a class of person.

We do not want to get a situation where we are holding up the rest of the legislation while those regulations are developed in consultation with the police, and it would be a shame if the legislation stalled for a bit longer in the lower house than is necessary while that consultation on regulations were made, knowing that upon assent that would come into place and you would need those regulations made.

We also want to just double-check in relation to the different treatment that swords and machetes will receive. That will be a proclamation that is made by the government at a later date, but we are not applying those sections, which will leave a time where there is even less regulation of those things. We will pass it here but with the caveat that we want to do some more work between here and the lower house to make sure we are not inadvertently doing something that means it has a danger of coming into force even later than it would without those sections.

In relation to the Hon. Mr Pangallo's amendments, there is a very similar approach from the government: we are happy to pass these in the house here, but given we have not had time yet to fully look and do our due diligence on the amendments, we will use the opportunity between the houses to further look at those, particularly the carve-out and exemptions that need to apply for the reasonable lawful use, and particularly in places of worship. We would not want to have the ceremonial dress that a number of different faiths have, particularly as part of ceremonies, inadvertently banned by the laws if that was the application of the law. So we will support in principle but reserve our right to have a more detailed look at those between the houses.

In relation to the Hon. Ms Bonaros' amendments, at risk of disappointment, we are not inclined to support those, but, again, I will caveat that we will look to see, between the houses, the application of those. Our great fear in relation to the amendments the Hon. Connie Bonaros has put forward is whether it is actually workable to think of all the scenarios that you might want to exclude by regulation where it would make a real and genuine difficulty in younger people being able to sell these products.

Where we have regulations in relation to the age that people can purchase things, like the tobacco products—the Hon. Connie Bonaros talked about the fact that people under the age of 18 can sell those—the closest analogy in relation to secure storage and under 18s not being able to buy products is in relation to spray paint, where they are under lock and key. My advice is that people under the age of 18—in hardware stores is a typical setting—can sell those as well.

We do not want to get into a situation where, as was mentioned, in the bait and tackle shop in Port MacDonnell or Marion Bay, or the very small IGA or whatever supermarket is in Elliston, you might have someone who is 16 or 17 working in one of those stores and a couple of grey nomads—tourists in their 70s or 80s—come through, want to do some fishing, did not pack their fishing knife and come into the store to buy one and are faced with the absurd situation of not being able to buy one because there is not an adult in the store at the time.

We understand the very good intent behind these amendments. We will not support them in this chamber, but we will look further to see whether there is a workable way to do that between the houses. With that, I look forward to questions and the passage and passing of this legislation in the upper house and, as I say, more work to do between the houses in relation to amendments.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I referred in my second reading speech to the contribution from the Law Society, in particular their concern around inadequate consultation. Has the government considered referring this bill on to a committee like the Legislative Review Committee and, if not, why not? Could the minister indicate with which organisations he has actively consulted? For instance, has he sought the views of someone like the Commissioner for Children and Young People, and has he sought the views of the Youth Affairs Council of South Australia? Having received the feedback from the Law Society, what action has he taken in relation to that?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I do not have the numbers here, but from the discussion paper that was released in August last year there was very extensive consultation, and we appreciated the extensive feedback. I do not have numbers, but particularly from the YourSAy website there may have been in the order of around 100; I am advised there were 115 responses.

I do not have the list of everyone who put in detailed responses, but certainly a lot of organisations took the opportunity to do that, whether it be unions that represent retail workers, the National Retail Association or South Australia Police, who, because a large part of the bill is about police powers, were heavily involved in the development of this bill. In fact, from the discussion paper to the development of the bill before us, this has been one of the most extensively consulted pieces of legislation that we have had in this term of government.

There has been a lot of extensive consultation in the development of this bill. We always appreciate the feedback from the Law Society, but given the extensive consultation and, in a lot of cases, improvements that have been made to the bill as a result of that consultation, we do not see the necessity of referring that to a further body after having gone through extensive consultation for the best part of six months.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Can I ask the Attorney about the scenario that was referenced in the Law Society submission; that is, a young person who might want to obtain access to a knife, who is living independently and who may well have a legitimate reason for accessing a knife, for cooking or working in a trade. What arrangements does the government have in place for young people in that scenario, who may not be able to rely on an adult purchasing a knife on their behalf?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. One of the reasons we followed some other jurisdictions that have not provided exemptions was a result of that consultation. The feedback to us, particularly from retailers, was that it was putting retailers in a difficult position. Again, a lot of the retailers are younger people working in those retail settings. To have to on the spot decide whether an exemption applied to someone was an almost completely unworkable position to put someone in.

To have a 16 year old, or a 19 year old, in a retail setting at the checkout having to make the decision about whether the legislative exemption for a trade or the legislative exemption to have a knife is permissible, and to have to make that decision and apply that legislation made it exceptionally difficult. In the submissions we have had, that is why in other jurisdictions they do not have the caveat.

We do appreciate that this will lead to inconvenience, but balancing the difficulty in applying the legislation at the point-of-sale in a retail setting, balancing that with some of the inconvenience that will apply, we had to make the decision that balancing the difficulty at the point-of-sale in a retail setting will mean that there will be younger people who will have to rely on a caregiver, an adult, a parent or an employer, in the case of needing them for trade, to supply or buy those knives for those lawful purposes.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I understand what the Attorney is saying, but what about those young people who are living independently who will not have access to a caregiver or someone in their life who can go and purchase a knife on their behalf? What if they are engaged in cooking school or they are wanting to do a trade or something where they might legitimately need a knife? What you are saying is that there is no solution for those young people; it is just bad luck, because it is too difficult to actually come up with a legislative exemption. I mean, does that not demonstrate that there is a problem with the law?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I disagree with that, with respect. Regarding the situations at cooking school or being engaged in a trade, if you are a young person engaged in a trade you are almost certainly working as an apprentice. You will have a host employer as an apprentice at a cooking school. There will be adults who are teaching and instructing you in that manner, and that is a possible avenue for being able to get those knives.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: What if you are somebody who is living on your own, independently, as a young person? There are young people in this situation, who might want to cook a meal, slice a steak or whatever at home. What are you offering for those young people? What provisions does the government have in place to manage that scenario? You cannot just say, 'Bad luck. You have to find someone to buy it for you.'

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. In those situations, I think the vast majority of, if not all, young people will know someone, somehow, in their lives who is over the age of 18 who can help them with the ability to have those knives for those legitimate purposes.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can I just follow on from that, before I get to my line of questioning? If I am a young person and I have travelled interstate, for instance, where knife laws are not as prescriptive as they are here, or I have gone to Japan and I have come back with a beautiful set of knives and I come through customs or the airport, is there any potential for that individual if they are checked or searched? Are there any ramifications for that individual if they are carrying knives on them? If you have a 17 year old and they go interstate and think, 'Great, I can buy knives here. I am taking them back home to Adelaide,' are there any ramifications for them in this?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is this is not about the possession; this is about the sale. If you have a lawful excuse to be in possession of a knife, it is about the sale of the knife, and we can control what happens for sales that occur in South Australia.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: If I just go back to the point that I made during my second reading contribution, looking at that paper that the National Retail Association has prepared in relation to online sales. In Queensland they say online marketplaces, e-commerce sites, home delivery, click and collect, sales to an end customer regardless of where the seller is based and all Queensland-based sellers regardless of where the customer is based are covered by their laws. Is that the intent here, or what is the extent of the intent in South Australia?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is, in the example the honourable member has given of sales over the internet, if it is linked to a delivery in South Australia my advice is that these laws will come into effect.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: So if it is a sale within South Australia, and a delivery linked to South Australia, the laws will apply? So it is in effect the same as what Queensland has in that respect.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is it is similar in that respect.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: What verification measures are we anticipating to accompany those? If you are purchasing alcohol, for instance, usually it requires you to present ID upon receipt by whoever is delivering it to your premises, to show that you are able to have it. Is that the sort of thing we are envisaging in this case?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is like in other ways that there are age limits to buy products that will be up to a retailer to demonstrate that they have taken the appropriate steps to ensure the age.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: How will those interstate retailers be made aware of the changes, given the age restrictions across jurisdictions for South Australia? Are there any plans for national consistency that the Attorney is aware of?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. We are moving to much more national consistency. The under 18 no exceptions already apply in, I am advised, WA, Victoria and Queensland, and it will be up to those retailers if they sell into South Australia to have those notices about the age of sale as well.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Does the minister have any evidence that this legislative approach will work? Is there any evidence from other jurisdictions that demonstrate that increasing penalties in this way will reduce the prevalence of knife crime?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. I think the point needs to be made that it is not an increase in penalties. Two things this legislation is aimed at doing is reducing the supply of knives, particularly to young people, and we have seen incidences like a knife taken off the shelf in a supermarket in an eastern suburbs state recently, and also, in certain circumstances and settings, giving the police more powers to detect knives. So this is not about increasing penalties for every single element to do with knives and the criminal law; it is about reducing supply and making sure police have more powers to detect.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Just on that point: do we have any statistics of the number of incidents involving purchased knives versus knives that are accessed through homes, for instance? Are there any stats kept? In how many of those instances has someone—I pointed to that example, you have pointed to an example, Attorney, but is that the main source of knives or is it just somebody going into somebody's kitchen, accessing a knife and using that to commit a crime that is more likely to be the supply of a knife?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for her question. I do not have statistics, but certainly making it more difficult to obtain knives that maybe the types of knives that are used in the commission of offences means there will necessarily be less supply.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: Does the Attorney have any evidence that suggests the reduction in supply has led to a reduction in offences?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: As I understand it, the honourable member's question essentially is: if there are fewer knives that are able to be used in the commission of offences might there be less offences committed? Like the Hon. Ms Bonaros' question, I do not have statistics that break it down into that sort of segmented area. However, unapologetically, this is aimed at reducing the supply of the types of knives that can be used in offences.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: I understand that but, to assist the Attorney in responding to my question, what I am trying to understand is will this actually do anything? I am trying to understand whether there is any evidence that supports the idea that the government's approach is going to actually reduce knife crime. Can the government point to examples of similar laws that have been implemented in other jurisdictions and say, 'Yes, during this period of time there has been a significant reduction in the kind of offending that the government is trying to prevent.' Do you have some evidence of that that you can share with us?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that a number of these amendments, particularly in Queensland, are reasonably recent amendments. I am not aware of there being long-term studies on the very recent amendments but, as I have said, the aim of this is to reduce the supply of the types of knives that can be used in the commission of these offences.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS: If the laws are only recent in Queensland and other jurisdictions and there is no data on whether or not they actually work, would it not have made more sense for the government to wait and see and maybe look at how those laws were working in practice rather than rushing to follow their lead without any evidentiary base?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his comment. With respect, no, we do not agree with that at all. If the honourable member is suggesting that we wait and see until there is a whole body of evidence built up over many years about whether reducing the supply of knives that can be used in these types of offences helps reduce these offences, and if we saw some more of these crimes committed and we look back and say, 'If only we had passed these laws this offence might not have been committed,' I would not feel comfortable that I have done my job properly.

So, no, the idea that we wait a number of years to implement what three other jurisdictions have implemented to see the sorts of studies that the honourable member wishes to see, in my view would not be responsible, given that this can have the capacity of reducing the supply of the sorts of knives that are used in offences.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I will clarify my questions, because they are not about opposing the bill but they are genuine questions in relation to how we are going to track that. Knives are in every household, so when we talk about a reduction in knife supply it is not like a reduction in gun supply or in prohibited weapon supply because they are more accessible. Once the bill comes into force, are we looking at any measures aimed at keeping track of whether there has been some sort of reduction in supply versus knife crime? Are we going to be monitoring that in any way, shape or form?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Let's make no mistake, we do not say this is a silver bullet and that having restrictions on these sorts of knives will end all knife crime. What we are saying is that this is one way to reduce the supply of these sorts of knives. As I said, I am advised that Queensland, Western Australia and Victoria are all moving towards similar supply reduction legislation. We think it is sensible to do that as a precaution here in South Australia.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Perhaps an easier way: is there any proposal or could there be a proposal to collect data on the number of refusals of knife sales to under 18s to gauge the sort of impact that it is having on supply?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am happy to check, but I am not sure that retail settings will keep—like with the analogy with the spray cans—statistics on when someone has or has not been refused.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Can I ask another couple of questions, one in relation to machetes. I think it was gardening and camping that was going to have an exemption. Is that the only grounds for exemption for a machete? What about collectors? I guess that is where I am going.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that collectors are another exemption already identified in the act. These are specifically in relation to machetes and are based on advice from SAPOL for appropriate exemptions. My advice is that apart from the new section in, I think, schedule 2, in relation to machetes there is already a general exemption for collectors contained in the legislation. That is my advice.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: For the sake of clarity, I have been through Queensland's legislation again in terms of exempt, controlled, controlled-secured and restricted sales. Is that the sort of model we anticipate we will adopt here in terms of actually defining what a knife is? There are butter knives, cheese knives, steak knives.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: That is the process we are engaged in as we speak. There is a round of consultation that has already commenced, particularly for storage and sale, about exactly what sort of knife will be captured and what sort of knife will not be captured. It is intended that the legislation provides for regulations in relation to that, and consultation has already begun. I understand that will take only a couple of weeks.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Who will that consultation extend to? Who are we looking to consult with in relation to the definition of knives?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In relation to storage and sale, largely it is the retail sector but also law enforcement.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I thank the Attorney for supporting in principle my amendment for further consultation elsewhere. I think that essentially supports what I have been saying in this place about the bill, that it has been rushed, but I am glad they are doing that. So far what I am hearing is that there is still a bit of a way to go with this thing.

Saying that you are going to reduce the number of knives because of this bill is the silliest proposition I have ever heard. What about axes? What happens if suddenly these people decide to use axes for their crimes?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. Depending on what you are doing with an axe it can already be considered an offensive weapon under our legislation, I am advised.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: How does the Attorney define what a knife is?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Do you mean for the purposes of storage or—

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: No, I want to know what your definition of a knife is.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: My advice is that a knife includes a blade, under legislation, but for the purposes of some of the changes we are making now, particularly the storage provisions and the sale provisions, that is what consultation is commencing on, and it will take a couple of weeks to look at what should be excluded from that.

For example, bread and butter knives, plastic knives, bamboo knives, the round-edge knives that are sold as dinner knives in cutlery sets are the sorts of knives we are consulting on for looking to exclude. In essence, what these aim to cover are the sorts of knives you see used in offences.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Is a sword a knife?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: What this bill does is provide the framework to then make the declaration that a sword will be a prohibited weapon.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: So we can have a better idea, if we look at the Queensland example, and I am not suggesting that this is where we will land, generally in Queensland we are talking about one single-sided blade such as a kitchen knife, a utility knife, a box cutter, a fishing knife, a scalpel, a cutthroat razor, a single-sided knife with a multitool or kit as opposed—and I am getting the sense that this is where we are going—to scissors, shears, shaving razors, cheese knives, plastic or wooden knives for eating and knives with rounded dull tips. The consultation is looking at the difference between those sorts of instruments when we are talking about knives; is that fair?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: In a short answer, yes. But to clarify a bit further, that is what we are consulting on at the moment. We do not want to see plastic or bamboo knives or bread-and-butter knives requiring to be behind lock and key storage. It is firmly designed for a lot of those Ranger knives the honourable member has mentioned in relation to Queensland that we do see used in the commission of offences.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: And the ones that are more likely to be controlled or secured would be, then, your machetes, your swords, your sickles, your spears, potentially spear guns, daggers that have those double-edged blades. They are likely to be the ones that move into the prohibited weapons, bearing in mind there are already offences that apply to many of those already?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I am advised that some of those sorts of articles are already prohibited weapons, and certainly part of what this bill does is set up the framework for machetes and swords to also become prohibited weapons.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Just in terms of regulations and knife exemptions, is the government looking also at blades such as kirpan blades, which are in my understanding a part of religious uniforms for Khalsa Sikhs? In Sikh temples there are religious uniforms that are often worn as part of dress. Might that be an exemption? I ask that in particular around the Hon. Frank Pangallo's amendment, which the opposition have indicated we are broadly supportive of, including a place of worship. I am just wanting to make sure there are no unintended consequences.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I appreciate the question. Under I think it is schedule 2, part 2, section 7, the principal act provides for exemptions for legitimate religious purposes. As I have said what we want to do between the houses is just make sure that interacts with the Hon. Frank Pangallo's amendments. We would not want to create the situation where we had made it unlawful to have a knife in a place of worship and then a part of a religious ceremony that had been conducted for centuries for a legitimate religious purpose had been banned inadvertently. There is already a broad exemption under the act. We will do the work to make sure it properly interacts with the Hon. Frank Pangallo's suggested amendments.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I guess there are ceremonial occasions, and you could easily substitute steel for wood. What about screwdrivers, Attorney?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Again, depending on how you are using them, they can be deemed offensive weapons.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: If a young person, a minor, working in Bunnings or another hardware store innocently sells a Stanley knife or a double-bladed knife, would the employer or the business be liable for their selling that to a young person? I will explain it. If I sent my young teenager—I do not have a child in the teens anymore—and said, 'Mate, we're doing some painting here. I need a Stanley knife. Can you just go down to Bunnings and buy it for me?' who will be liable if it is sold to them?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. I gather his question is: if it is a knife that becomes one that is not allowed to be sold to someone under the age of 18 years, that knife would likely, I am advised, have to be in that secure storage. So I think the honourable member is asking: what happens if any person, whether it be an adult or a 17 year old at Bunnings, unlocks that secure storage cabinet that the knives are required to be behind and then sells one of those knives to someone under the age of 18 years? My advice is that under this it is the person doing the selling who would be held responsible.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: So what is going to happen, Attorney, is that in hardware stores and other stores, but hardware stores in particular, things like Stanley knives and other bladed items that are used by tradies or whoever are going to have to be locked up behind some kind of a cupboard or whatever. How much is that going to cost businesses in having to apply the legislation to their stores?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his question. It will be similar to businesses that previously have sold spray paint. We have had discussions with retailing bodies. In the consultation we have had it was suggested that there will be some retail outlets where the sale of knives that will need to be secured is a very small part of what they do. It might not be a particularly profitable part or it might not be by volume a particularly large part and those businesses might decide that this is not something they actually make a lot of money from and the need to put them behind secure storage means it is not worth selling them anymore.

But, obviously, as when legislation for spray cans came in and they needed to be behind lock and key, a decision might be made by the retailer that actually this is a part of their business that is needed and they will make the decision to keep them as a part of their line and put them behind lock and key.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: But there is no evidence that locking away spray paints has actually reduced the incidence of criminal vandalism. In fact, it has probably got worse.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for his observation. It is equally true that it could be a lot worse if it was available to be taken off the shelf than it is now.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Centofanti–1]—

Page 3, lines 5 and 6—Delete clause 2 and substitute:

2—Commencement

(1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act comes into operation on the day on which it is assented to by, or on behalf of, the Crown.

(2) The following provisions of this Act come into operation on a day to be fixed by proclamation:

(a) sections 3 to 7 (inclusive);

(b) section 11.

This amendment really seeks to ensure, where possible, that these laws can be swiftly acted upon in a practical sense to assist with the safety of South Australians.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the honourable member for bringing this amendment to the chamber. As I said, we will support it in this place, but we will want to make sure it does not have what would be an absurd consequence of actually holding up the implementation of the bill because, even under some of the parts that this amendment would say would come into effect on proclamation, there still needs to be regulations made under those. So we will support it here, but with the caveat that we want to make sure that—and I understand it is not the intention—it will not have the unintended consequence of actually holding up the implementation of some of these things even longer.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I indicate my support on the same basis as the government.

The CHAIR: I am going to put the question that clause 2 stands as printed and if you are supporting the honourable Leader of the Opposition you will vote no.

Question resolved in the negative.

The CHAIR: The next question is that new clause 2, as proposed to be inserted by the Hon. N.J. Centofanti, be so inserted.

Question agreed to.

Clause 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Pangallo–1]—

Page 3, line 33—After 'facility' insert ', a place of worship'

I note that the Attorney-General and also the opposition have indicated they are supportive of this amendment in principle, so then there will be three other consequential amendments. Should I move all of them now?

The CHAIR: No, we have to do them one at a time.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Amendment No. 1 amends the offence of using or carrying an offensive weapon or dangerous articles in a school or public place to include places of worship.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Similarly to my contribution to the Leader of the Opposition's amendment, and as I outlined in my second reading sum-up, we will support these but we want to do some work to make sure they do not have any unintended consequences between the houses.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 5 passed.

New clause 5A.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Bonaros–1]—

Page 4, after line 5—After clause 5 insert:

5A—Insertion of section 21DAA

After section 21D insert:

21DAA—Prohibition of retail sale of knives by minors

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if the person—

(a) carries on a business of selling knives at retail premises; and

(b) employs a minor at the retail premises; and

(c) causes or permits the minor to sell a knife from the retail premises.

Maximum penalty: $10,000.

Expiation fee: $1,000.

(2) However, subsection (1) does not apply to the sale of knives from retail premises in circumstances prescribed by the regulations.

(3) In this section—

retail premises includes—

(a) a market stall; or

(b) a temporary or pop-up shop (however described); or

(c) any other premises or place, or premises or places of a class, prescribed by the regulations.

I have already spoken to the amendment but I will say this: I am grateful and appreciative of the Attorney's willingness to continue to look at this issue in terms of sales by minors, which is the subject of this amendment. That said, I will just remind honourable members that if we flip the very last argument that was put at the beginning of this debate, and I think it was in response to one of the Hon. Rob Simms' questions to the Attorney, I think it really illustrates why we have moved this amendment.

I cannot recall the precise wording or detail but, in effect, the response given by the Attorney—and I do not mean to misquote you, Attorney—was that it would be unfair to expect a young retail worker to be responsible for exemptions of knife sales, for instance, to a 16 year old or a 17 year old. Really, what this amendment is trying to do is alleviate that same unfairness from a safety perspective of that young worker when it comes to selling these knives overall.

I do not think, from a safety perspective, it is fair to expect young kids—bearing in mind they are not all 16 and 17; we have 14 year olds and 15 year olds working in these places as well who are selling these knives. I just do not think it is fair to put them in that position, which is precisely the same argument that was given in response to the Hon. Rob Simms when it came to exemptions for young people wanting to buy knives. So I am really hopeful that the Attorney will continue to look at this.

I note and thank the opposition for their support. But as we progress, I remain hopeful that the Attorney will give some more thought to this in terms of providing, which I know he is very passionate about, safe workplaces for young people, particularly in those retail spaces.

New clause negatived.

Clause 6 passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Pangallo–1]—

Page 6, line 23 [clause 7(1)]—After 'facilities' insert ', places of worship'

Amendment No 3 [Pangallo–1]—

Page 6, line 25 [clause 7(2)]—After 'facility' insert ', a place of worship'

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 8 passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 1 [AG–1]—

Page 10, line 14 [clause 9, inserted section 66Z(3)]—Delete 'A police officer' and substitute:

For the purposes of detecting the commission of an offence against Part 3A, a police officer

These are minor drafting amendments. They have been picked up by drafters to make the language consistent with other provisions in our legislation.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I will speak just quickly because it was remiss of me not to mention the government's amendments in my second reading speech, although I do echo the thoughts of the Hon. Robert Simms in regard to these amendments being quite late. Perhaps the government should heed their own advice when putting in last-minute amendments. But on that, I do think the government's amendments create consistency in legislation. They allow the commissioner to create an order for the prevention of a weapon and they also stipulate that the commissioner must report on special searches and the nature of each incident within each annual report. We think that these amendments collectively are sensible and we are happy to support all of the government amendments.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 4 [Pangallo–1]—

Page 12, after line 6 [clause 9, inserted section 66ZB(1)]—Insert:

(ab) a place of worship;

This amendment is consequential to the previous three.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I move:

Amendment No 2 [AG–1]—

Page 19, after line 23 [clause 9, inserted section 66ZJ]—After paragraph (f) insert:

(fa) the number of authorisations granted under section 66Y and 66Z during the relevant period and, in relation to each authorisation (identified by location and date)—

(i) the nature of the incident in relation to which the authorisation was granted; and

(ii) the number of people searched in the exercise of powers under the relevant section; and

(iii) whether weapons or articles of a kind referred to in Part 3A were detected in the course of the exercise of powers under the relevant section; and

(iv) the types of weapons or articles so detected; and

(v) in relation to an authorisation granted under section 66Y—whether the Commissioner gave consent under section 66Y(3);

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (10 and 11) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector, Special Minister of State) (17:23): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.