Crimes Legislation (Dangerous Articles) Amendment Bill

Debate resumed from 3 May.

Mr WHELAN (Ashfield) [11.15]: This bill, introduced by the Government, could be described as second best. The best was a private bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposition. The Crimes Legislation (Dangerous Articles) Amendment Bill, with its Crimes Act nuances of intention to protect personal safety, has the same object as the Leader of the Opposition's private bill.

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Rixon): Order! Members should show courtesy to the honourable member who has the call.

Mr WHELAN: The Leader of the Opposition introduced his bill well before the Government first thought of the need to address failings within existing legislation and policies, failings which reflect a lack of understanding that women in our community need protection. That is the essence of the bill introduced by the Government. The bill, echoing exactly the private member's bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposition, is limited to two pages of substance. There is little difference between it and that introduced by the Leader of the Opposition. If the Government had the courage of its convictions about protecting women in our society, it would adopt the views of the Leader of the Opposition and his bill. The only difference in the bills is that the Government wants to amend the Prohibited Weapons Act 1989, as stated in clause 4 of the bill, by inserting after section 5(2) the following subsection:

(3) This section does not apply to a prohibited weapon specified in item (40) of Schedule l.

The Leader of the Opposition advocated reference of a substance to a committee which should include the Commissioner of Police and a representative of the Women's Advisory Council in the Premier's Department. The Government may pretend it had the interest, design and initiative, but that rightly belongs to the Opposition. The Government has the benefit of being able to oversee carriage of the bill. The Opposition supports the measure for the same reasons espoused by the Government, but wishes the Government would adopt a few of the amendments proposed by the Leader of the Opposition in his bill. Regrettably, his bill cannot be cognate with this bill because of the telling difference that prohibited substances are to be referred to a committee. The Opposition cannot oppose the current bill. The Opposition will pursue consideration of its bill but supports the proposed Government legislation.

Mr O'DOHERTY (Ku-ring-gai) [11.18]: I wish to discuss generally the concerns of John Gill, one of my constituents. John Gill is a self-defence instructor who operates a self-defence academy in Hornsby. He has been coming to see me for about 18 months about self-defence sprays for women. John Gill is one of those who want to import capsicum chilli defence sprays into New South Wales. This debate has been going on for a number of years. Before I was elected as the member for Ku-ring-gai I remember interviewing members of this House and, I think, Mr Gill himself about this very issue. Over the years I have stayed in touch with the debate. However, I have gone in circles around it. I find it hard to work out exactly where we should draw the line on those things that ought to be available for women - and for men as well - to carry as self-defence mechanisms.

John Gill and one of his female self-defence instructors came to see me 18 months ago and made what I considered to be a fairly compelling case about the desire of women to carry these sprays. The case was based on a number of things, but one of the more telling points was made by the female instructor. She said that the women she knew felt that it was better to carry a spray because, unlike a knife - which women feel is particularly threatening - it would not be as damaging or harmful if the spray was turned on the woman by her attacker. She felt that, from that point of view, it was a better weapon of self-defence for women to carry because women would feel less threatened by it. They claim that the capsicum chilli spray does not have any harmful effects beyond its immediate impact of stunning the victim for a period of perhaps as long as 15 minutes.

I found that argument compelling and, as a man, I certainly did not want to say that the woman's opinion was wrong. I undertook to take her argument to the Government and I have raised it during the course of the past 18 months. Most recently I raised it with the Minister for Industrial Relations and Employment and Minister for the Status of Women. Advice came back from the Minister's department a few months ago that, so far as the women's co-ordination policy unit was concerned, it was not in the interests of women to have this spray available in the community. The department's position was that it was not in the best interests of women for any weapon that might potentially be used against them - whether this spray or a knife or a gun - to be available.

That was the very strongly worded advice from the Minister's department. I am still not certain that that is the feeling of most women in the community. Because I am a man, it is not a decision I am able to make. I say to the women in the electorate of Ku-ring-gai that if they have feelings about this question, they should let me know because I still have not made up my mind about whether or not such a spray should be freely available to women to be used in self-defence. So far as this member is concerned, the jury is still out and I would like to hear from women about this question. So far as Mr Gill is concerned, he still contacts my office occasionally and is anxious to have the matter pursued. I have this day raised the matter yet again with the Minister for Police, who assures me that he will have the matter further investigated by his department. The bottom line is that the Government would not want to make the wrong decision. What honourable member would want his or her name next to a decision that later turned out to be contrary to the interests of women? Certainly not me - and, I suspect, not the honourable member for Ashfield.

Page 1936

It is a matter that should be debated. I urge the Government to continue to consider the question but to do so with some haste because it needs to be resolved. Finally, I offer the suggestion of my constituent John Gill. It may turn out to be impracticable but I offer it to the Government as a suggestion, that is, if there is concern about this spray getting into the wrong hands, why not make it available on a licensing system through police stations and those people who want to obtain the spray could have their names recorded in a register at the police station as possessing the spray. That is one suggestion from my constituent to prevent the spray from falling into the wrong hands.

[Interruption]

If the honourable member for Ashfield really wants to debate the issue about whether or not the spray might get into the wrong hands, I am happy to engage in such a debate during the 10 minutes that are available to me. I do not suspect that the honourable member really wants to introduce a system whereby this weapon or any other could be used against women. The idea is to make it available for their self-defence. If the honourable member wants to open up the system so that more weapons are available to be used against women, he is welcome to do so. Members on this side of the House are interested in establishing the merits of the case as to whether women will benefit from the availability of the spray. I support the legislation currently before the House and again call on the Government to continue to investigate whether the capsicum chilli spray should be allowed to be imported and used in New South Wales.

Mr NEWMAN (Cabramatta) [11.25]: I am absolutely amazed at the contribution from the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai. Considering the amount of publicity in New South Wales surrounding this issue of a spray can for women's self-defence and the surge of public opinion, it is astounding to hear a member of the Government suggesting that an opinion poll should be conducted - an opinion poll concerning the right of women, or for that matter any person in a desperate situation and in fear of their lives, to have some sort of protection. I indicate my support - indeed, the support of the Opposition - for a bill that will amend the Prohibited Weapons Act to provide a defence of self-defence for the possession of certain dangerous articles. The Government did absolutely nothing to assist women and those who are targets for the low life in our society, particularly in respect of assaults in the streets; it sat by and did nothing until after the Court of Appeal decision in respect of a woman found in possession of a spray. After that decision the Leader of the Opposition spoke out publicly, I think days after, and indicated that a private member's bill for that purpose would come before this House.

It was not until that happened and there was absolute public outcry in this State that the Government acted to bring forward this bill. It is a bill that I support. Some of the points made by the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai in terms of the self-defence aspect and the right of people to defend themselves amazed me. It is important to note that it is not just a question of women in New South Wales being able to possess a spray as a result of this bill being enacted; it is a question of anyone - the elderly, possibly young people or those incapacitated in some way - being permitted to carry a spray of some kind, at least as a comfort in case of an assault.

Having been involved in self-defence for many years, and having taught self-defence to many women, I know the fear that some people have about assaults in the street. Anyone involved in self-defence would have reservations about how people act in particular circumstances, but when one weighs it all up, in the case of some women it is a good thing for them at least to be able to have some implement to deter an attacker. The Opposition's record is very clear on this issue. Although this is not an Opposition bill, quite clearly it could have been. The Opposition made sure that the Government introduced this bill tonight. It was a turnaround by the Government. If it had not been for Bob Carr and his actions, it would not have happened. The women of New South Wales will salute Bob Carr for his action and next March their votes will go to the Australian Labor Party.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford - Minister for the Environment) [11.30], in reply: I thank all those honourable members who participated in this debate, especially the honourable member for Ashfield and the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai. The latter gave an excellent, spirited and vigorous contribution to the debate, as he always does. I also thank the honourable member for Cabramatta. This Government is determined to ensure that the women of this State are entitled to, and able to, protect themselves when the occasion arises. It was clear, after the Court of Appeal decision, that action had to be taken. Unlike the knee-jerk response of the Leader of the Opposition and his acolytes this Government deliberated the matter to try to ensure that the bill we would introduce would be sympathetic to the concepts of an orderly society where weapons were not regarded as a normal means of apparatus to be carried around. Accordingly, the Government examined the matter appropriately and developed this legislation. This Government is determined to ensure that the women of this State are protected and that is why we have a strong law and order policy, and will continue to have. I commend the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.