Police Offences Amendment (Knives & Other Weapons) Bill 2025 (No. 3)

Wednesday 9 April 2025

[4.53 p.m.]

Ms ARMITAGE (Launceston) - Mr President, I have a little paperwork here. There were many notes to take today with regard to the briefing.

I am pleased to speak about this bill and I thank the Leader for the comprehensive briefings that were arranged for us to better understand it. I would like to thank Reid's mother, Laraine, and hopefully this does not bring back too many memories through our comments.

I thank you sincerely for coming in today and offer sincere condolences to you and your family because I know that, as you say, no-one can walk in your shoes unless they have been there. It is the most terrible situation. I really appreciate the fact that you were able to come in today and share with us.

Otherwise known as Reid's Law, the Police Offences Amendment (Knives and Other Weapons) Bill 2025 will improve the ability of Tasmania Police to detect and seize dangerous articles, including knives and other weapons, and deter offending through increased penalties for possessing these weapons without a lawful excuse. We also heard today that it will not affect seizures from farmers or tradies carrying out their work with knives and that is really important. If you have a genuine excuse for carrying a knife, then you will certainly not be affected.

Today, it was also interesting to hear and see some of the photos of things that have been confiscated and also handed in at some of our entertainment venues - flick-knives, machetes, a whole range of dangerous articles including nail scissors - people carrying deadly weapons and causing harm, and the fact that one in two robberies occurs with a knife. Obviously, it is a very easy weapon to get. I can remember you used to be able to walk into some of our department stores and you would see knife blocks and knives. Now they are simply not around because it was such an easy thing for people to steal.

The facts that we were given today include 278 robberies for 2023-24, an increase of 29 per cent from the previous year, and 87 armed robberies, with knives used in 51 per cent of these armed robberies. There were 27 incidents in retail outlets, 21 in homes, and 13 on the street or footpaths. Just imagine how terrifying it must be to be confronted with someone with a knife. You may remember, at the rear of my office, I believe it was in December, I was on my way to Hobart but my staff member was there and there was a man in the back laneway with a knife, terrifying people. It was a very unfortunate situation and the police had to come. The gentleman was deceased in the circumstances where it happened.

As has been said this morning, it is impossible for us to imagine what it feels like to hear that your son has been murdered. Laraine, you can only be commended for working so hard to help bring this to fruition.

To my mind, it is very important that we look for prevention. We are not wishing to punish vulnerable youth. Youths were mentioned a lot today. I have been working with Tasmania Police now for just over 30 years, doing 'independent person'. I go in quite regularly to sit with youths who have been charged with a variety of crimes. Many of them have knives. I can recall one boy having a very large knife and asking him why he had the knife and he said he was going fishing. I might add that he did not have any fishing gear with him. They always have a reason for having it. Others would say they have a knife for protection, not thinking that that knife could very easily be turned against them as well, when they are carrying a knife for protection. It is quite interesting talking to a lot of the youth. They are male and female, there is no one gender. A lot of them genuinely believe that something is going to happen to them, and they carry a knife for protection. Unfortunately, things often get out of hand. I think that is one of the real reasons it is so important that police have the ability to use these wands.

We also heard today about negative interactions with police. My experience over decades is that young people get on extremely well with the police. The situation that I find myself in is probably when the young people are at their most vulnerable because they have just been arrested. Sometimes it is the first time that they have been arrested and they have been taken to the police station. More often than not, they are waiting in the little cage outside for the police to take them into an interview room. They are then in an interview. If I am there, they do not have a family member or a guardian that can come in, so a stranger is there with them. They are on camera. They are interviewed and then we go into the charge room. Then they are waiting to be photographed, swabbed, fingerprinted. I find that would be terrifying for some of these young people.

However, the one thing I can say is that they always have a great interaction with the police. I probably get a little cross with them. Sometimes the police tell me that; they call me back to the same person if they get the same person again - because it is, 'Why did you do that?' 'Why are you back?' 'You promised me you will not ever come back again'. You start to feel a bit like a mother to some of these young people who come in. 'She gets so annoyed that they come in, that they are there time and time again, particularly some of them as they promise they are not going to and then they do'. The thing that really gets me, and I have had this discussion with our current commander and previous commanders, I have often thought the police were too nice to these kids, that sometimes they look after them too well. I believe that maybe we need to give them a little bit of a fright so they do not come back.

One thing I noticed with Tasmania Police is that they are extremely good with all the youth. I cannot remember any example over the 30 years or more that I have been going in - I was there only last week actually, as well, with another youth. I have been doing it quite regularly and would say that Tasmania Police conduct themselves in an exemplary way with these children and young people. I believe in the wanding that they would do the same. Some of the kids would think this is fantastic. They like to get wanded. It is a quite an interesting group of people at many times.

Is it an affront to civil liberties? I do not believe it is. In over 1000 wandings in Queensland over the last year, my understanding is that there were no complaints. I strongly believe it is really important to prevent. We are not punishing vulnerable youth. It is important that if they are doing the wrong thing or they are carrying the wrong thing that it is pointed out to them. Maybe, early on, it might prevent them going down a far worse path.

The honourable Leader, in her second reading speech, noted the exponential increase in violent crime involving the possession and use of dangerous articles including things like knives, scissors and bladed weapons. Additionally, the Leader noted a 308 per cent increase in youths who have been charged with possessing, carrying or using a dangerous article in the public place. These are not just numbers and statistics. This has resulted in life-changing offences committed against people in the community who are just going about their job or their daily activities in public places. We have the right to go about our days free from the scourge of demonstrably increasing crimes involving the use or carrying of dangerous articles.

I understand that there are concerns that this bill represents an overreach of authority and places civil liberties at risk. People are and should be free to go about their business without undue harassment from police or any other authorities, unless there are clear and reasonable grounds for a search and seizure to take place by someone like a police officer. I would also argue that people have the right to go about their work, their social activities, their daily business, free from the risk of violence with weapons and dangerous articles that are easily concealable but very deadly.

It is a bit of a zero-sum equation here. Giving police these powers does necessarily mean, as some claim, civil liberties are being reduced. It is a delicate balancing game and we must consider carefully whether or not the circumstances call for it. I believe they do. I think there is enough evidence, both quantitative and anecdotal, to show there is a need for police to be given these expanded abilities to search and seize, particularly if it means that people can go about their business and simply exist in the community and public spaces a little more safely.

This brings me to Reid Ludwig, whose mother Laraine has worked so hard to help bring this bill to fruition and who lost her son in some of the worst, most appalling circumstances I can remember ever hearing about. I hope it is alright, Laraine, to mention Reid, who was 41 years old, was with his family at a Blackmans Bay service station in 2019 when he was stabbed with a knife during an altercation by someone he did not know.

This is not the sort of society I think we should stand by and be satisfied to live in. I also understand that we need to be careful about using one example to extrapolate from and develop policy on. The thing is, the circumstances of Reid's death are not just statistical anomalies. This bill is similar to Jack's Law, named after teenager Jack Beasley, who was stabbed to death in Queensland in 2019. Jack's parents, Belinda and Brett, like Ms Ludwig, campaigned for similarly expanded police powers. The legislation we have before us has been modelled on the laws in another jurisdiction, which means they are tested and reliable. We are also following the Northern Territory, Western Australia and New South Wales, which have enacted similar legislation in past years. I appreciate there are some differences and I will get to those shortly.

In addition to this, a trial of the metal detection wands to be used by police a number of months ago has shown success already, with one in five searches resulting in the confiscation of a dangerous article. These searches are quick, non‑invasive and can help prevent crimes before they occur. To my mind, this is a win-win.

The honourable Leader also provided some information on the legalities involved in this bill, including the threshold of a belief a police officer is to hold before they can carry out a search for a dangerous article. This, I understand, is the threshold of a reasonable suspicion. This will differ in every single case, and it is not possible to plan or legislate for these.

We do place a lot of trust in police officers to carry out their jobs safely and proportionately, and I know a lot of training goes into ensuring that police officers understand their responsibilities under the law. The point is, however, that police officers will not be able to arbitrarily search people pursuant to this bill.

They still need to form and demonstrate that they possessed a reasonable suspicion that a person may be carrying a dangerous article. This is formed by people's behaviour, the circumstances they are in, and the context in which a search or seizure can take place, such as how quickly certain events might be unfolding.

A reasonable suspicion also is not a brand new concept in law. There are decades of well-developed common law principles and precedents that can help courts to determine and understand what a reasonable suspicion is in the circumstances of a case they are hearing. The fact that a police officer only has to hold a reasonable suspicion to carry out a search of the kind that this bill enables, I believe is justified.

I further heard this bill being criticised on the grounds that it may bring more young people into contact with the police. As the honourable Leader said, this may well be the case considering knife and other weapon offences involving young persons have increased by more than 300 per cent over the last decade.

My response to that is, is that not a good thing? Does it not provide us with the opportunity to intervene in circumstances where a young person might not be receiving the support and guidance they need? We are seeing better resourcing and expansion of services available to intervene and redirect young people, such as the BEAST Program run by JCP Youth and many others.

As I have mentioned, having worked with Tasmania Police for many years as an 'independent person', I have seen many young people actually not come back, or I am being told by police that they have not come back, that just that one interaction with police has been enough for them to change the direction they were taking and sometimes change the friends and the circumstances of what led them to be at the police station.

I believe that sometimes it is a good thing to come into contact with police, perhaps to learn that it is not a good idea to carry nail scissors, and we all know that if you are carrying manicure scissors, there is a good reason to believe it is not to clip your nails. It is generally to get into a car or to start the ignition and unfortunately on many of those occasions the car ends up being burnt out.

I agree that addressing violent crime and crimes committed with dangerous articles needs a response in addition to making changes to our criminal law. I acknowledge that this bill will not simply stop violent crime from occurring. To make any meaningful reduction in the prevention of commission of violent crime, especially where young people are concerned, we need to take an approach which includes mentoring and diversion away from criminal activity altogether and this requires resourcing. While this is an issue that is not covered by the bill, perhaps others in this place might be addressing that in their contributions. I will say that this bill is one tool we can use to make that happen.

I do not agree that this legislation is knee-jerk or disproportionate in the circumstances. I believe there is a clear need that the increase in police search and seizure proposed is proportionate and reasonable, and that too many people have paid the price for these sorts of weapons being on our streets already.

There is a balancing of rights and freedoms contained in this bill, but ultimately I am convinced by the demonstrable rise in crimes involving knives and dangerous articles, the significant rise in these crimes involving young people, which offers additional opportunities for earlier intervention, the success of the one trial which has already taken place in Tasmania, and the belief that people have the right to go about their business in our communities free from a growing risk of violence from knives and dangerous articles outweighing the right for people to not be searched for these articles in reasonable suspicion circumstances.

One of the many areas that was raised this morning by quite a few people in briefings was the search in schools. I note that there is an amendment from the member for Hobart. I do not have any children at school at the moment. I have a grandchild in kindergarten, but I would have to say I would be very happy for the police if they had any suspicion at all to go into a school for any of my grandchildren to ensure that they were safe. I would have no objection whatsoever if the police felt there was a need, whether it be a university, a TAFE, a high school and, in some cases, maybe a primary school. If they were going to keep my grandchild safe, I would say 'You go and you wand whoever you need to wand - if you have suspicion, if you have had advice that there is an issue at that school.'

I would hope that it is not withdrawn from the bill. I believe it is a very important part of the bill. In order to keep people safe, particularly people that we love, I see no objection to it whatsoever.

I know that Tasmania Police will not go into schools willy-nilly taking a wand, and just wanding classes, unless they actually have a genuine reason to be there. I know that is simply not going to happen. I trust Tasmania Police, as obviously do the majority of Tasmanians, after the figures that we heard today about trust in Tasmania Police. I have no concern at all with them having the rights to go into any school or any public place to undertake these duties, on reasonable grounds.

It is important to mention that police have told us this morning that they cannot form a reasonable ground or suspicion on a prior interaction. If someone has been in trouble in the past, it does not mean that the police will see them and go up and automatically wand them unless they actually have a reasonable ground or suspicion.

I thank the honourable Leader again for bringing what I am going to call Reid's Law to this place. I offer my sincere appreciation to Laraine Ludwig and Reid's family for their advocacy and their hard work on the policy. I acknowledge all those in our community who have been affected by crimes involving knives and dangerous articles.

I thank my colleagues for what I am sure will be a well-informed and civilised debate on the issues this bill seeks to address. I look forward to hearing their further contributions. The safety and wellbeing of our community is paramount.