HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-02-10 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SUMMARY OFFENCES (WEAPONS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 8 February 2011.)

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:34): This is a timely bill. Members will no doubt be aware that, unfortunately, a very serious incident occurred in the city just yesterday. A young woman, 32 years of age, was standing at the bus stop waiting for the bus and was stabbed. I will not go into a great deal of detail; I am not aware of a great deal of detail, other than what has been published on the Adelaidenow website, but obviously it is tragic, and you can imagine if that was one of your family or friends.

My understanding is that the victim was not known to the assailant. It is a terrible situation, and I think it is a significant event that reminds us of the importance of some of the legislation we debate in this place. We sometimes forget that these bills have very significant application in the real world. Certainly, if the passing of this bill would reduce or, ideally, eliminate the sort of incident we saw yesterday, I think it should be wholeheartedly supported.

That said, when we debate bills in this place, of course, it is about the detail. It is about the various lines of the bill that may or may not support our particular positions on a matter, and it is that to which I now turn. I rise to indicate Family First’s qualified support for this bill, which fulfils several objectives, which are listed by the government as including a prohibition on the sale of knives to minors; authorisation of police to use hand-held metal detectors to find knives and other weapons, the implementation of a weapons prohibition order regime, and allowing general weapons amnesties to be conducted in relation to dangerous articles and offensive and prohibited weapons.

These are all generally good things, and I think most members in this place would concur with that statement. Family First would always support measures that work to reduce measures that reduce knife crime in particular, as it is a very nasty crime indeed. That is, of course, as long as these measures are not taken so far that they become unacceptable to the community. We are opposed to measures that adversely impact recreational fishers, for example, who are legitimate users of knives; sporting shooters, who may also be legitimate users of knives; and other law-abiding members of the community who simply enjoy the outdoors and require to use a knife as part of their particular pursuit.

The Hon. Stephen Wade in his contribution asked a number of very pertinent questions—as he often does, I might say—including the following: what is the scope of lawful excuse within the act, in particular in terms of parents and guardians transporting a child to school where the weapon is not needed for a task at the school, but is being carried, or is in their possession, for a purpose beyond the school. Would that constitute a lawful excuse?

Secondly, would the presence in a student's lunch box, for example, of a fruit knife related to that lunch be considered a lawful excuse? One assumes so, but I put these questions to the minister for clarification. Would a Stanley knife in a student's art kit or locker be considered a lawful excuse? Does a person need to know that they are carrying or possessing a weapon for the offences under this bill in order for it to be established that they have a lawful excuse?

The fact is that knives are used for many legitimate purposes and have been used as an ordinary tool for thousands of years. If this bill means that students, for example, cannot use a knife and fork whilst eating lunch—I am sure that is not the intention—then obviously we have taken things too far. As I say, I am sure that is not the intention, but I place that question on the record for the minister's clarification in the summing up.

I would like to add a few more questions that I think will really tease out the specifics of the bill, and the first one of those is: will this bill restrict Boy Scouts, for example, from being able to use, possess or buy a knife, or other groups, such as the Sea Scouts or Girl Guides who use pocket knives?

Secondly, will this bill prohibit recreational fishers, specifically, from being able to carry a fishing knife in a reasonably public place, such as a public beach, which they might need to cut their lines or gut their fish, or whatever else they may do with them? Will this bill restrict duck shooters or hunters from being able to carry a knife on their way to and from their hunting grounds? Is it anticipated that ordinary eating utensils, as I mentioned before, such as knives for cooking (perhaps in a home economics class or something to that effect) will always be exempt?

In short, what limitations and scope are suggested in the definition of ‘lawful excuse’, which is left undefined in this bill?

This is a very important question. To me, this is the real key issue in this bill. I think that everyone would agree that people carrying knives should have a lawful excuse. The question is: what is a lawful excuse as defined by this bill?

I also have one question regarding weapons prohibition orders and an inconsistency with respect to firearms prohibition orders that is evident in this bill. Under the current domestic violence order regime, a magistrate must—and I repeat, 'must'—issue a firearms prohibition against a person if a domestic violence restraining order is made against them. That is probably not unreasonable, but it is a requirement. There would be some people who may have a case against that.

However, the important point to make here is that this bill does not require a weapons prohibition order in the same circumstances as for other weapons. In fact, police cannot even apply for a weapons prohibition order against someone unless they have a criminal conviction for an offence of violence or are liable to supervision, and that seems inconsistent to me. Essentially, we have this condition that there is an automatic requirement to remove firearms, which, again, may not be unreasonable, but the question is: why should that not apply to other dangerous implements for people also under such orders?

It is fair to say that I do have some concerns regarding the wide scope of this bill and whether some of the legitimate and important freedoms for groups, such as fishers and shooters, will be further eroded. As a party, we believe very much in the right to individual freedom, and we do not like those freedoms being eroded without very good reasons, indeed. I trust that this bill will not do so significantly.

My reading of the bill is that it is a legitimate attempt to curb, essentially, out of control use in gang-related crimes associated with knives and, again, I think that every member in this chamber would support that. We certainly would very strongly, but we want to make sure that freedoms are not unnecessarily eroded for law-abiding citizens who do the right things with knives or, as in the case of sporting shooters, firearms. That being said, and assuming that the answers provided are reasonable, I think it is fair to say that Family First is happy to support this bill.

Knife crime, unfortunately, is on the rise, and this is the real reason for this bill and the reason for our support of the bill. Knife crime is on the rise, and I have just given a horrific example of one incident that happened yesterday. In fact, I am told by South Australia police that figures show a 30 per cent increase in knife-related crime over the past five years. Homicide and related offences have increased by 22.6 per cent during that period, armed robbery has increased by 10.4 per cent and assaults by 3.9 per cent.

In some measure, this may be due to the rise in the use of amphetamine-type drugs in recent years. These drugs are cheap, so less theft occurs to pay for the habit, but they cause aggression, which is one of the reasons we are seeing a rise in figures such as assaults, code black calls in our hospitals and attacks on pensioners in their homes. Certainly, a clamp down on the sale of knives to minors, which this bill seeks to do (among other measures described in this bill) may take steps towards reducing some of that crime. Again, I am sure that all members in this chamber would be happy to support that.

I doubt that this bill will make a vast difference but, certainly, it may have some impact on knife crime, and some impact will be a step in the right direction. As I say, if we can avoid the sort of horrors that we saw yesterday, it is worth supporting. It may remove some knives from schools, for example, which teachers no doubt will appreciate, and for that, amongst the other reasons I have outlined, I indicate that Family First provides in-principle support for this bill, but careful answers to the questions I have put to the minister will be appreciated and important in our final decision.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (15:43): I rise to speak briefly on this important bill. I fully support the remarks of my colleague the Hon. Stephen Wade; and I note that he has raised large number of queries in relation to the bill, and we look forward to receiving the answers. I also note the comments made just now by the Hon. Dennis Hood, who shares the concerns that I have in relation to the impact of knife-related incidents in our society.

I particularly want to refer to an amnesty on knives, which I understand will now be specifically effected through clause 21L of this bill. Before going onto that, I would just like to give a bit of background to my interest in this area and, I must say, the lack of any response from the government. On 26 May last year, I asked the minister representing the Minister for Police a question in relation to a general weapons amnesty. At that time, I said:

On 1 April this year Victoria Police Deputy Commissioner Kieran Walshe announced a month-long weapons amnesty with a particular focus on knives. According to Victoria Police over 800 weapons were handed in, including machetes, swords, hunting knives, butcher's knives and flick knives. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2008 victims of crime report, knives were the most prevalent weapons used in the categories of murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, abduction and robbery.

I went on to say:

We are all aware that last weekend the city's West End was the scene of yet another violent and near fatal stabbing.

With that in mind, I then asked:

...will the government follow the Victorian government's lead and announce a knife-specific amnesty or broaden the scope of future gun amnesties to include all weapons?

The Hon. Mr Holloway, the then minister representing the Minister for Police, responded that I had raised a matter of legitimate public concern. He went on to say:

I know from my experiences as minister for police that the amnesties that take place from time to time are generally made on the recommendation of the Commissioner for Police. However, I am sure that, if the honourable member's suggestion is put to the commissioner by the Minister for Police, it will be given careful consideration. We have had a number of amnesties at various times, and obviously their timing depends on a number of factors. However, as I said I will make sure the suggestion is conveyed to the minister for his, or the commissioner's, consideration.

The fact is that I respect that the minister representing the Minister for Police was very genuine in those thoughts, but does that mean that I got a response from either the Minister for Police or the Commissioner for Police? No, I did not—nothing.

Sir, you might recall that almost six months later I reiterated some of those remarks in a second question. I basically asked whether the minister in this chamber knew of a response and, if there had not been a response, whether he would undertake to make further representations to report back with a response before the end of last sitting year. There has been no response.

I am very grateful that the bill includes a capacity (I am told it is a specific capacity) to allow a knives amnesty, and I think that is a very good thing. However, what I am unhappy about is the fact that, once again, we see an example of where, I think, the ability of members in this place and the other place to ask a question and get a response from the government in a reasonable period of time is being totally ignored. I was not playing politics with the matter at all. What I was doing was raising my concern and the growing concern of many people in the community, as exemplified by the Hon. Mr Hood a few moments ago, about knives in the community.

I commend the government for including this provision in the bill, but the fact is that there was no contact with me. I do not want any thanks for raising it, but it would have been nice just to have been contacted by the Minister for Police's office and told that this will be fixed in the bill. I am disappointed about the way in which that has happened; however, my concern about knives in the community, as I say, I think replicates that of many others. I am delighted that the capacity to have the amnesty is in the bill, and I look forward to that capacity being activated.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.

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