18 February 2025
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.