HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-07-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Summary Offences (Declared Public Precincts) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Ms REDMOND (Heysen) (12:28): I wish to make a brief contribution, simply because I am somewhat dismayed at this government's continuous intrusions into the freedom of our society. We already, of course, have lockout laws. We already have quite extensive laws under the legislation supposedly going to control the bikies and all the other nefarious activities of organised criminal gangs and so on. Now the government has brought forward the Summary Offences (Declared Public Precincts) Amendment Bill, which seems to me to be an unnecessary further intrusion into the freedom of individuals.

Over the 14 years that I have been in this place, this government has managed to decimate the financial status of this state. Very few people realise just how much that new hospital is going to cost us once we move in and start paying $1.1 million a day for the next 30 years. We are not getting any more doctors out in the suburbs and in the regions, but we are going to be paying an awful lot of money for that building. That and many other things in which this government has supposedly invested have left us in a dreadful financial situation.

Mike Rann, when he was premier, used to refer to Adelaide as the Athens of the South and well may he have done so because he and his cohort will indeed turn us into the Athens of the South by absolutely decimating the financial situation in this state. But, with all of that, at least one could say that we lived in a free society. This government and, in particular, this Attorney-General seem bent on making sure that those freedoms are curtailed wherever possible—unnecessarily, it seems to me.

I understand that the Attorney may at some point wish to sit on the bench of a court, but I have to say that my discussions with many members of the legal profession expressed profound disappointment in the current Attorney's attitude to law and order because he continues to beat the drum of 'We're tough on law and order' rather than actually looking at what causes crime and what we might do both to prevent it and to rehabilitate those who become involved in a criminal cycle.

In that regard, I can say that I served with former Speaker the Hon. Bob Such on the juvenile justice select committee many years ago in this place and it was clear from the evidence given to that committee that, in fact, the cycle of criminal behaviour really was identifiable in most instances from a very young age. Indeed, we had much evidence before the committee to indicate that teachers can often tell as young as grade 1 which students were likely to end up going off the rails, to use that expression.

Having identified those youngsters, the trick was going to be intervening in a way which was appropriate but which did not label them and then force them to live up to the label that had been applied to them. A lot could have been done over the last 14 years in terms of addressing the problems of young people entering into criminal behaviour, some of which starts out with something quite minor, but this government has failed to address any of those issues and instead, over a period of many years, has taken it upon itself to simply beat the drum of being tougher and tougher on law and order.

I note that there have been a number of submissions in relation to the bill. In particular, the Law Society suggests that the bill as proposed will have a disproportionate impact on both Aboriginal people and young people. That view was in fact supported by the Youth Affairs Council of South Australia, which I think might have formerly employed the newly elected (but not yet sworn in) member for Mayo, Ms Rebekha Sharkie. I think she may have worked for the Youth Affairs Council of South Australia in recent years.

In any event, the Youth Affairs Council provides a submission on this bill and rightly points out in its submission that the police already have extensive powers to intervene where young people might be involved in offending behaviour and, like the Law Society, says that the bill will, in all likelihood, disproportionately impact on young people.

In a similar vein, the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement made a submission and, unsurprisingly, said that in their view both young people and Indigenous people would and could be disproportionately affected by this bill. For a government that supposedly stands for equality and reasonableness in its treatment of people, I cannot see how it is that this government can justify bringing in what it proposes.

The only part of the bill that I would say I support, and that only tentatively because I have not had time to check what other powers there might be, is the provision which allows the police to remove children from a declared public precinct. The bill is about declaring these public precincts. Police could be empowered to remove children, using powers of removal under the Children's Protection Act if the child is, in the opinion of the police officer, in a situation of serious danger.

I would have thought that, firstly, they probably already have that power and, even if they do not, that it would be a very surprising thing if in any event there was a child in a situation of serious danger a police officer removed from the situation and there was anyone who objected to it. Nevertheless, that is the one provision of the bill that I indicate I would be prepared to support. I do not know whether or not we are going into committee but, if we are not, I will be opposing the bill in any event.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (12:36): I have a few things to say about the contributions, and some of this is in no particular order. There is a difference between what this bill actually proposes to do and what those opposite are characterising it as doing and then criticising. It is the classic example of set up the straw man. I know I have said this before, but one thing you find consistent with a great many movies, usually science fiction ones, is that you start off with one tiny little premise which is completely bogus—like it is possible to travel in time or to teleport from one part of the planet to another instantaneously—and after—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Attorney, sit down. The house is reminded of standing orders. It is very early in the week. Attorney.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: After you have accepted the bogus proposition that you can get into a blue phone—

Ms Redmond: Like privatising Medicare.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Heysen is called to order.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —box and travel from here to another planet at a different time, everything else seems pretty logical. Let's get back to what we are talking about here. Let's be clear on what it is and what it is not. What it is is to say that if you have an area such as, for example—and I am using this is a very concrete example because I think it is likely to be the only area I can think of that is almost a certainty for this—Hindley Street, in particular between King William Street and Morphett Street, and you have a look at that area and, as the member for Bragg quite rightly said, it is chock-a-block full of licensed premises. It is no secret that that is also a mecca for yobbos and ne'er-do-wells and people who have had far too much alcohol who become very unruly and cause trouble and fights and all sorts of other problems on the street.

We are in a bizarre situation now where the police have powers to do all sorts of things—to question those people, to arrest those people, to bar those people, to wand those people with metal detectors, to put dogs on those people to sniff if they have illicit drugs in their pockets and all that sort of thing. They can do it if they are in a queue outside a licensed premises. They can do it if they are inside the licensed premises. If my memory serves me correctly, they can do it if they are in the car park of the licensed premises, but if they are just on the footpath, even a big mob of them, or they are congregating around, they cannot do any of those things.

We have this bizarre situation where every building down Hindley Street and a small bit out the front of it, where people might queue up, and the little roads down the side, like that one down the side of Red Square, the name of which I cannot remember, those little streets—Rosetta I think it is—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Rosetta is where they stab people.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, where they stab people.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The deputy leader is called to order.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: What happens is that the police now have this honeycomb sort of situation: 'If you step over here into the queue line, we can do all sorts of things; if you step out of the queue line, we can't do anything. We have a completely different set of rules applying.'

All I am trying to establish here is that between certain hours on certain days there can be, by this mechanism, a gazettal to say that the police can interact with people in that street. Whether they are on the footpath, in a queue, in a licensed premises, walking up the middle of the street, whatever they are doing, they have the same power to deal with those people in respect of the following things: bad behaviour, checking whether they are carrying weapons—and, remember, there is no excuse whatsoever for people carrying offensive weapons anywhere, but particularly in an area which is chock-a-block full of licensed premises and drunk people. They can check for weapons and they can check for drugs; that is it.

I do not consider the idea that we can identify a place—and let's say it is Hindley Street on Friday night and Saturday night between 9pm and 9am, or whatever it might be—and I cannot see for the life of me how that is causing the catastrophic impact that everyone is wailing and carrying on about. It does not do that. What it means is that in periods of time when that part of the city is chock-a-block full of people, and we know and the police tell us that there is the highest probability of having violent, unnecessary injury of people because of bad behaviour, the police should be able to say, 'Look, move on, you. Get out of here for the time being. Not forever, not for the rest of your life, but between these hours on these nights for a defined period of time.'

There is a completely bogus attack on this which needs to be set straight. We are on about having a safe city where people—not just the people who live here but the people from interstate and overseas we hope might visit here—are going to actually recognise that this city has a reputation for safety. I cannot see any reason why we should be trying to impede the ability of the police, particularly in these very limited areas where we have large numbers of licensed premises trading all night, and why the police should not have the capacity to try to eliminate people carrying weapons and people trading in drugs, or people who are so disorderly that they are making a nuisance of themselves and hurting other people, and get them out of there. I cannot for the life of me see what is wrong with that.

As for the consultation, it has been up on the website since 19 March and, as the deputy leader indicated, most people seem to have found it, at least most of those who have an interest in it seem to have found it since then. I am not sure who we are supposed to be consulting with who have not already offered their opinions—

Ms Redmond interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. J.R. RAU: —but I assume that those people who want to carry weapons and sell pills to kids in places in Hindley Street will disagree with this legislation. I welcome their disagreement because if they liked it I would not have got it right. I am happy that those people do not like it because I do not want their support. I want them not to like it—that is the whole point.

Ms Redmond interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Heysen, do not cause me to call you to order again.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: As for this business about disproportionate impacts on various people, can I come back to the reality of this—not the Doctor Who version of it. The reality of it is that we are saying, 'Probably Friday and Saturday night between certain hours, if you go in this area, and if you behave badly, you will be booted out and you can't come back otherwise you will get an expiation notice.' How on earth is that singling out any person in the community, other than people who are behaving badly? How on earth is that picking on anybody, other than people who are behaving badly, or people who are carrying weapons, or people who are carrying drugs?

Are those opposite saying that all young people who come into the city fit into that category? They cannot behave, they are carrying weapons, and they are carrying drugs.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: And if they do it's okay anyway.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Newland.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, good point.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do not respond to an interjection.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Sorry. I thought it was a good one.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It can't have been because I'm not laughing.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Okay. Fair enough.

Ms Redmond interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Heysen.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: What a low opinion they must have of young people that they think they need protection from this sort of stuff because they will be offenders. Of course the Law Society does not like this. They have their opinion, I respect their opinion, but I am not surprised about their opinion. It is what they do to have this opinion, I understand that, and fair enough. It is fine. The member for Bragg mentioned that we have all these tough rules about carrying knives and all that sort of stuff. Yes, we have, but—

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: You have to find them.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: You have to find them, exactly. I am not sure about this, but I think if you spoke to most police officers, they would tell you that people who are carrying concealed weapons do not voluntarily say, 'You've got me, here is my concealed weapon.' They do not do that. They actually carry them in a concealed way for one reason, that is, they do not want to be detected. Guess what will make them feel really nervous about carrying a concealed weapon? The knowledge that if they go into that precinct with their concealed weapon and they look like they are up to no good the police might come up to them and say, 'Excuse me, sir or madam, do you mind if I run this metal detector over you?' That might actually make people think twice about carrying knives, 'namchakus' and all these other elaborate things people carry into these places.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Nunchaku.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Nunchaku, is it? I am sorry I am not familiar with the spelling. Let's stick with knives, I can pronounce that properly. That is what we are on about. This is not trying to change the whole world. We are just recognising reality. There are certain places which are like a honey pot for people who are up to no good. That is bad luck, but it is the truth. I use that example again of, say, Hindley Street, Friday and Saturday night between 9pm and 9am. You do not have to be Einstein to work out that, if you are looking for trouble, the most likely place in the city you can find it is right there. Everybody knows that, you do not have to be a genius. That is the reality. This is not the Doctor Who version: this is the reality version.

My last point is Claire O'Connor. I did raise my eyebrows when mention was made by the member for Bragg about Claire O'Connor supporting my legislation. I would have been devastated if she and I had agreed on something as profound as this, but I was relieved to hear that in fact that was a mistake. I can assure the member that I never thought Claire would have been a rapturous supporter of this legislation. If the media wrote such a thing about her, she should take it up with them because it certainly did not come from me. I certainly did not say Claire was supporting this. I respect her views and I know them well. I am certain that she would not be supporting this for a whole bunch of reasons about which she, like the opposition in my respectful opinion, are completely mistaken.

This is a limited, measured bill to provide an enhanced degree of public safety in limited circumstances for limited periods of time in limited places. I think we all should ask ourselves a question: if we have family, friends, children, whoever travelling to the city at night-time, do we want the city to be the safest place it can possibly be, where we do not have drunk, violent people hanging around, where we do not have people with concealed weapons hanging around, where we do not have people with pockets full of pills to sell hanging around? Is that not what we want?

If we do want that, what is wrong with actually saying to the police that just because you pass from this artificial construct of the queue outside of this premises and take a step away you can no longer use your metal detector and you cannot have the dog sniff the person's pocket to see if they have got pills in there? It is just madness. This is all about public safety. Contrary to, with respect, the quite bizarre submissions about picking on young people, this is about actually guaranteeing young people, and their parents who I know would be worried about them, that they can go into town and they can be safe in town because the chance of them being confronted with a drunken yobbo with a knife in their pocket has gone down a lot by reason of this new capability. For those people who want to get into town and behave sensibly, this is the best thing since sliced bread.

Finally, the proposition that homeless people, homeless kids, who want to come into town for safety reasons will be impacted by this, again another Doctor Who construct, even if what I anticipate might happen were to happen, it would simply mean that a young person who wants to behave badly, and insists on going to Hindley Street to do it, might be asked to leave. I am struggling to see the problem there.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Make no apology for it.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: That is a bit of a cliché, so I am just struggling to see what the problem is.

The Hon. S.W. Key interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: True. I hope the opposition will reflect a bit on this between here and the other place. The issue of safety in our city and on our streets is a very important issue. I make it very clear that I have always had the view that this thing will be limited in time, limited not only by hours but by days, and limited in place. It is intended to say, 'Those of you who want to come into town and congregate in large numbers and get drunk and carry weapons and sell people pills and generally misbehave, this is not a good idea because the place you are going to is a place where you might just wind up either getting a spot fine or, worse, detected with a weapon—detected with a weapon, importantly—and then all those provisions we brought in about carrying weapons then click in and you wind up with a serious offence.'

I understand what has been said opposite. I hope people will reflect again on what this is actually about and what it is seeking to achieve. It is anything but picking on defenceless law-abiding citizens. It is actually saying to all law-abiding citizens whatever their age, whatever their ethnicity, 'You come to the city and have a good time, and you behave yourself and have a good time, and we welcome you. Good. Not only that, we are going to make the city a safer place for you to come in and have a good time.'

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Justice Reform, Minister for Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for Child Protection Reform, Minister for the Public Sector, Minister for Consumer and Business Services, Minister for the City of Adelaide) (12:52): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

Sitting suspended from 12:53 to 14:00.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT