Page 3730 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 22 November 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
do this will act as a very real deterrent in itself to people who are carrying knives in these areas who should not be. I think that new section and that new power is the most fundamental part of this legislation.
The legislation also concurrently amends existing legislation to acknowledge the fact that we have that new section and that new power. Accordingly, we have new subsection 382A. There are consequential amendments throughout that.
As well as that, the penalty regime has been enhanced. It brings us into line, again, with New South Wales and South Australia, although I note that New South Wales has an even higher penalty when a knife is used for a serious offence. There is an additional offence for that. I am not going down that path, but in terms of possession of a knife for the purposes of this exercise, the penalty structure has been brought into line with other states—specifically New South Wales and South Australia.
This bill also rationalises the penalties. We had a situation where here it was $1,000 or six months under the Crimes Act for possession of a knife, yet in the Prohibited Weapons Act it was, I think, $10,000 and one year imprisonment. There were other offences of $5,000 and six months imprisonment. The penalties were all a bit higgledy-piggledy.
I appreciate that the penalties are by no means the be-all and end-all. They are important. They are a deterrent. I heard the government on the radio yesterday indicating that they would be increasing the penalties for people leaving the scene of an accident from a maximum of six months imprisonment to two years imprisonment. Funnily enough, that is exactly the same as I have here.
Whilst they are important, penalties need to be rationalised. That is what we have done. But I do not see the increase in penalties as being the most fundamental part of this legislation. Of more fundamental importance is the additional ability of the police to take action—and the new offence in relation to being in licensed premises or near licensed premises. That said, the penalties go up to 100 penalty units, with imprisonment for two years or both.
We then come to the Prohibited Weapons Act, where the penalties are out of kilter with the Crimes Act at present. That act is amended to correspond with the amendments made to the Crimes Act. Some new sections are added in the schedule to bring the penalties into line with the Crimes Act again.
Previously I think the penalty was 100 penalty units and imprisonment for one year. It has gone to two years for consistency. Previously the penalties in the Prohibited Weapons Act were 50 penalty units and six months. That is now 50 penalty units again, but imprisonment for one year. That occurs firstly in clause 5 and clause 6 in relation to the one year. In clause 8, again for consistency, the 50 units and six months goes to 50 units and one year.
I think it is a better piece of legislation. It consolidates and improves the penalty structure and makes it more logical between the two respective acts. But, most importantly, it gives police the ability to randomly search people in, or in the vicinity
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .