Home Invasion (Occupants Protection) Bill

The Hon. J. W. SHAW (Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Fair Trading) [9.43 p.m.]: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to incorporate my second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The Government is pleased to introduce the Home Invasion (Occupants Protection) Bill 1998. As the Premier announced to the House the other day, the Government intends to make the law of self-defence in the home clear and simple. The Government will therefore be introducing the Home Invasion (Occupants Protection) Bill to achieve this result. The purpose of the bill is to apply the common law of self-defence, along with the defence of others or property, to occupants of dwelling houses.

This bill represents a further demonstration of the Government’s resolve to stamp out home invasions. The Government has not been silent in the face of home invasions. By way of the Criminal Legislation Amendment Act 1995, which commenced on 1 July 1995, the Government amended the Crimes Act 1900 so that an intruder who enters a residence knowing there are persons present inside will automatically face a higher maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment.

The bill builds on these reforms by codifying and clarifying the law in relation to self-defence within the home so that the people of New South Wales are apprised of their rights. The current bill is a result of productive negotiations between the Government and the Hon. J. S. Tingle. The Government agrees with the Hon. J. S. Tingle that it would be a worthwhile exercise to apply the current common law of self-defence, and the defence of others or property, to occupants of dwelling houses to effect greater clarity in the law.

The extent of the right of occupants of dwelling houses to act in self-defence often attracts a great deal of media and public interest. One of the undoubted drawbacks of applying a common law test to circumstances that arouse public interest is that the common law is not easily ascertained. Often, it is only to be found buried in law reports or legal textbooks. In contrast, a statutory test may be easily ascertained by way of reference to the Act in question. Acts of the New South Wales Parliament are readily available to members of the public, and may be purchased at little cost.

I emphasise that the proposal will not essentially alter the current law of self-defence as it applies either to occupants of dwelling houses or to any other persons in this State. Rather, it will convert the current common law of self-defence to a statutory form for occupants of dwelling houses. By way of introduction, it should be noted that the defence of self-defence is a complete defence. If raised successfully, it results in a complete acquittal. It is also a defence to all offences of violence, including murder.

I turn now to discussion of the key provisions. Clause 6 seeks to codify the law of self-defence within the home for the occupants of dwelling houses against intruders. The provision codifies the settled common law test that the accused must honestly believe on reasonable grounds that it was necessary to do what he or she did in self-defence. In the leading case of Zecevic in 1987, the High Court stated:

The question to be asked in the end is simple. It is whether the defendant believed upon reasonable grounds that it was necessary in self-defence to do what he did. If he had that belief and there were reasonable grounds for it, or if the jury is left in reasonable doubt about the matter, then he is entitled to an acquittal.

In other words, in order to obtain a conviction in cases where self-defence is raised, the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant did not believe on reasonable grounds that it was necessary in self-defence to do what he or she did. The definition is balanced in two ways. First, the defendant must have actually believed that the degree of force used was necessary. Second, that belief must have been based on reasonable grounds. These two elements build into the law in this area the crucial concept of proportionality.

In all serious matters, the defendant has the right to have the question of whether he or she acted in self-defence in accordance with that test determined by law-abiding members of the community serving as jurors. Clause 7 codifies the common law test in relation to the protection of others. Put

Page 8705

simply, the defence of self-defence holds that an identical test applies to acts undertaken in defence, not of oneself, but of another person. Accordingly, by way of the provisions of this bill, if the occupant of a dwelling house were to act in defence of another person, the same statutory test would apply.

Clause 8 codifies the position in relation to the defence of property. The law in this regard is somewhat unclear, although it is arguable that the Zecevic test does so extend. In the interests of clarity, this clause would make clear that an occupant can act in defence of property provided he or she believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to do what he or she did. Once again, the defendant must have actually believed that the degree of force used was necessary. Second, that belief must have been based on reasonable grounds. Of course, one would expect juries to adjust their determination of these issues according to whether or not persons or property were being defended.

Clause 9 codifies the interpretation which has been placed on the element of reasonable grounds under the Zecevic test. That is, it states that the reasonable grounds requirement discussed above should be interpreted with reference to the position and perception of the accused, and not with regard to some completely objective analysis. New South Wales courts have held that it is the belief of the accused, based upon the circumstances as the accused perceived them to be, which has to be reasonable, and not the belief of the hypothetical person in the position of the accused. So much is clear from the leading New South Wales decisions of Regina v Hawes in 1994 and Regina v Conlon in 1993.

Clause 10 codifies the onus of proof where self-defence, along with the defence of others or property, is at issue. In short, the prosecution bears the onus of disproving the defence beyond reasonable doubt once it has been raised by the accused. When self-defence is to be raised, the defendant must point to evidence that genuinely raises the issue. Once the defendant has done so, the obligation is then on the prosecution to disprove the defence beyond reasonable doubt. It should be clearly understood that, having raised the issue of self-defence, the defendant need prove nothing. The prosecution must disprove the defence beyond reasonable doubt.

Let me give an example. Presume that a father has been charged with assaulting another person who invaded his home. Presume also that the father claims he was acting in defence of his family and that the judge accepts this as an issue genuinely raised. For the occupant’s actions to be lawful, he must have honestly believed on reasonable grounds that it was necessary to do what he did. It is not up to the occupant to prove his innocence. This would offend basic principles of criminal law.

Rather, in order to obtain a conviction in cases where the defence is properly raised, the prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the occupant did not meet either elements of the legal test. That is, the prosecution must establish that the defendant did not believe on reasonable grounds that it was necessary in defence of his family to do what he did or that he did not have reasonable grounds for that belief. If the prosecution can disprove either of the elements of defence relied on by the occupant, he will be convicted.

The law thus balances the rights of occupants and those who act in self-defence, along with the defence of others and of property, with the rights of victims in those cases where the defence has been spuriously raised. Clause 11(1) essentially seeks to clarify the position that a person will be immune from criminal liability for his or her acts provided he or she has acted lawfully in self-defence or in the defence of others or property.

Clause 11(2) states that if proceedings are commenced against a person as a result of a confrontation with an intruder, the occupant must be brought before the court within nine months. This provision is to ensure that after a person has been charged - or other proceedings commenced - the matter is dealt with promptly. It does not mean that the ultimate proceedings concerning a person’s guilt or innocence must be commenced in the nine-month period.

Clause 12 seeks to clarify the position that a person will be immune from civil liability for his or her acts provided he or she has acted lawfully in self-defence or in the defence of others or property. In conclusion, I emphasise that the bill will not essentially alter the current law of self-defence as it applies either to occupants of dwelling houses or to any other persons in this State. Rather, it will convert the current common law of self-defence to a statutory form for occupants of dwelling houses. The bill will thus retain the fairness of the common law position and effect greater clarity in the law by virtue of its codification. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER [9.44 p.m.]: On behalf of the Opposition I speak to the Home Invasion (Occupants Protection) Bill, a piece of legislation that I was prepared to speak to when I entered this Chamber in 1996. As all honourable members would know, the original bill was introduced into this place by the Hon. J. S. Tingle, and on behalf of the Opposition the honourable member for Gosford, the Hon. Chris Hartcher, introduced similar legislation in the other place to ensure a cohesive approach. The Government could not escape the inevitable fact that the community wanted this legislation. As the record shows, the opportunity to speak on this legislation was denied by the Government. There is no better evidence of that than the position taken by the Attorney General. His position on the concept of protecting residents is confirmed by his recent unequivocal statements that he did not want this legislation. Now it has been forced upon him. In May 1997 in this Chamber the Attorney General said:

. . . the Government has formed the view that the common law on self-defence operates satisfactorily and fairly.

Further, he said:

It could legalise the use of grossly disproportionate violence.

What has changed the mind of the Attorney General? Does the Attorney General stand by his earlier held fears that the removal of proportionality of response will result in the actions of occupants being unchecked? The Attorney General said:

Accordingly, even if the intruder has used no force at all, if the occupant believes the intruder might use any physical force, the occupant is justified in using any level of force against the intruder.

Page 8706

What has brought about the change? I have no doubt that the Attorney General will tell us that it is a different bill.

The Hon. J. R. Johnson: You tell us now.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: The reality is that it is not a different bill. I feel sorry for the Hon. J. R. Johnson because he wants to support the Opposition, but he is being denied. Last week I attended a public meeting on law and order at Wyong Shire Council chambers. All members of Parliament from the Wyong shire were invited to attend. The meeting was held on a Monday night at 7.30 p.m.

Honourable members could imagine my surprise to hear the convener, John Millard of Wyong Shire Council, read apologies from the honourable member for The Entrance, Grant McBride, and the honourable member for Wyong, Paul Crittenden. They said that they were unable to attend because Parliament was sitting. It was a Monday night and I had missed Parliament! What was I doing at the Wyong Shire Council chambers? I should have been here with those honourable members. When I arrived on Tuesday morning I discovered that Parliament had not sat on the Monday night. Perhaps those other honourable members wanted to be early on the Tuesday to ensure that their voices were first to be heard, so they came down on the Monday night.

The Hon. J. H. Jobling: A pretty poor excuse.

The Hon. M. J. GALLACHER: No, I think they were trying their best for the people of the Wyong shire. They wanted to be here early, so they came down on the Monday night. I will not give anecdotal evidence about home invasions because other honourable members will be speaking to the bill. The Hon. M. R. Kersten will refer to home invasions in western New South Wales. There is no better member to talk about that region. The Hon. A. B. Kelly could have a go but he does not have the same depth of knowledge as the Hon. M. R. Kersten. I am sure all honourable members are looking forward to his speech.

During the Wyong meeting people expressed their growing disquiet towards opportunistic politicians. The three State members and two Federal members who represent the Wyong shire are from the Australian Labor Party. When the people in the Wyong shire electorate talk about their elected representatives they are referring to Australian Labor Party members. They can see right through the ALP and the way that this Government has pounced on this bill in the last couple of months leading up to a State election. Is it any wonder that the people of the Wyong shire view the Australian Labor Party with such contempt?

The Attorney General is now fully committed to this legislation. He is behind it 100 per cent. In fact, the Government is so committed it took the bill of the Hon. J. S. Tingle as its own. Initially, that raised some concerns. I raised my eyebrows when I heard that the Hon. J. S. Tingle had allowed this bill to slip into the Government’s hands and permitted it to take carriage of it. I had an opportunity to speak to the Hon. J. S. Tingle a short time ago, but as the honourable member knows that conversation was in confidence. He knows that my track record in respect of this matter is undeniable. I would not discuss in this Chamber anything that he has said to me in confidence because he knows that I have a track record - in fact, he will say that when it comes to confidence nobody does it better than the Hon. M. J. Gallacher!

Be assured that the Hon. J. S. Tingle will not hear back any of the conversation I had with him, but I look forward to hearing in further detail how the Government got its grubby little hands on this particular legislation. The Hon. J. S. Tingle knows also that it was the Opposition that supported him from the outset together with the honourable member for Gosford. They worked hand-in-glove on this bill, like a team. Everything went like clockwork until the Government jumped up and decided to spoil the show for the people of New South Wales.

Of course, the Hon. J. S. Tingle knows that when Government members stood over him, heaping criticism on him for wanting to protect the people of New South Wales. The Opposition referred to it as a redneck plan to enable people to get their hands on the guns, but he knew that the Opposition was there supporting him 100 per cent of the way. This issue is not about guns: it is about protecting the people of this State. It was disappointing to see the Premier brandishing this legislation in the lower House as if it was his when he should have given credit to both the Hon. J. S. Tingle and the honourable member for Gosford for introducing the legislation.

The legislation we are debating this evening is quite interesting. Unfortunately, in the view of the Opposition it does only part of the job. We on this side of the Chamber have long held the view that the growing trend of acts of violence by offenders is getting out of control. This legislation will protect residents, but, interestingly, it will protect also
Page 8707
people who are in the process of protecting their property. It is important also to define home invasion within the context of this legislation. Home invasion is not set out in the Crimes Act. It is not defined anywhere. Will the Attorney General please indicate, for my benefit and for the benefit of honourable members in this Chamber, whether a definition of home invasion in fact exists?

The New South Wales Parliamentary Library research service in its briefing paper entitled "Home Invasion and Self-defence: an Update" referred to the definition of home invasion as an armed robbery upon the home. It is the Opposition’s belief that this bill will provide protection only if the intruder is armed. However, an examination of part 2 of the explanatory notes to this bill reveals that an occupant of a dwelling needs only reasonable grounds in order to act in self-defence of himself or another. Clause 7 provides the same requirement in respect of property. There is no mention of the offender being armed, as set out in the research service briefing paper. It is therefore to be assumed that the definition retained by the New South Wales Police Service for statistical purposes, which describes a home invasion as involving an armed person, is incorrect.

A more succinct definition of home invasion, as contained in the Crimes Act, would be break and enter with intent or, to a lesser extent, enter upon enclosed lands. When one takes into account the sentencing procedures and the Government’s view of the seriousness of this type of crime, it is little wonder that those who attended the public meeting at Wyong held this Government in such contempt.

The Carr Government is effectively telling the people of New South Wales that no action will be taken against them if they defend themselves when they are confronted by an intruder in their homes, and believe they must act in self-defence to protect themselves or someone else in that home at the time. If an attempt is being made to steal their colour television and they believe they must protect themselves, irrespective of the outcome, if they can demonstrate that they have conducted themselves reasonably, no action will be taken against them. On the other hand, if they do not take action against the offender and elect to call the police, the offender could be sentenced to home detention.

The Government is trying to play both sides in relation to law and order. It is suggesting that people who break into our homes are really not all that bad; that we should try to understand them and give them a chance irrespective of what they have done. At the same time it is trying to appeal to the wider community by saying, "If you are forced to protect yourself in your home and you kill or seriously injure someone then you will be covered." When I was a police officer criminals caught by occupants would plead, "Please don’t call the police. I won’t do it again. Please let me go." Under this Government things have certainly changed!

[Interruption]

The death penalty - that is what the Hon Dr A. Chesterfield-Evans is saying! Once the word gets out in the community that the Government is more interested in confining criminals to the comfort of their own homes rather than making them fulfil their sentences in the traditional way, some home occupants may elect to administer a bit of summary justice before the police arrive because they know the Government is not interested. Let me assure the Hon. E. M. Obeid and the Hon. J. R. Johnson that I will tell the people of the central coast the truth. They will be the first to learn that the Government is not really interested.

The Opposition has had a longstanding commitment to the concept of protecting occupants from attack within their homes, but our dedication to that belief is not as limited as this bill suggests. We have previously placed on the record our fears that habitual criminals will have access to home detention, and that will be one of the matters to which we will give our earliest attention when we are returned to Government in a few short months. Similarly the Opposition has given a commitment to strengthening this legislation because, like so much the Government of New South Wales has done in the past, it fails to go the distance.

I commend the honourable member for Gosford, Chris Hartcher, for the work he has done in seeking to extend the possibilities of this legislation to ensure that all of the citizens of New South Wales are protected - regardless of whether they are at home, in the workplace or on the streets of New South Wales. The miserable bunch on the opposite side are reluctant to congratulate a hardworking member like the honourable member for Gosford, but it will not be very long before more coalition members will be representing constituents on the central coast of New South Wales. I am sure the Hon. J. S. Tingle would be quietly in agreement with our views that the legislation fails to protect other individuals in our community outside the family home.

In 1996 there were 174 home invasions in New South Wales with 139 in the Sydney metropolitan area. In 1997 that number had dropped
Page 8708
to 164 statewide, with 116 in Sydney. Of course, that is in stark contrast to what is happening in the workplace in New South Wales. The following statistics are of interest. Robbery with a firearm - 454 incidents in 1996; 703 incidents in 1997. Robbery with a weapon not a firearm - 804 incidents in 1996; 1,661 incidents in 1997. The Government is putting its head in the sand. It is ignoring the pleas of the people of New South Wales to provide widespread safety nets to ensure that all people are protected when they act to protect themselves.

The Opposition has given an undertaking in another place that when it is returned to government in a few short months it will revisit this legislation and will provide the very same protection measures for citizens outside the home. I commend the honourable member for Gosford for his pursuit of this matter. He has spoken with the Parliamentary Counsel, and the Opposition is fully aware of the need to introduce separate legislation to cover citizens in the workplace - whether they are shopkeepers, taxicab drivers or employees. We recognise the need to broaden the measures in this bill and we have given an undertaking to do so.

The Opposition is fully aware of the difficulties that can be anticipated when future legislation is drafted. The inherent difference between a home invasion and a robbery in a workplace relates primarily to whether an invitation was extended to enter upon the property. I thank the Hon. J. S. Tingle for the friendly advice and counsel he has given me on some of the finer points of the legislation. In the case of someone in a dwelling the invitation to remain on the premises can be removed; similarly it can also be removed in the workplace. The Opposition is committed to overcoming the difficulties. It will provide the necessary framework that will take the ramifications of the legislation beyond the home and out to the streets of New South Wales.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE [10.01 p.m.]: I am overwhelmed by deja vu. The Hon. L. J. Hooker Gallacher has, as he said, done it again. Nobody does it better! When it comes to verballing, L. J. is the very best. It was a great performance but he is a day too late: the ARIA awards were last night. People can be forgiven for having a feeling of deja vu about the bill. In fact, when I woke this morning and remembered that the bill would be considered by the House today I felt, to borrow an Americanism, that this must be groundhog day. So welcome to my, your, and their bill. There may well be some confusion - I know there is in the mind of the Hon. M. J. Gallacher - as to the origins, the lineage, the present ownership and the future prospects of the bill, so let me briefly remind honourable members of its tortuous path.

I delivered the second reading speech on the original bill on 16 November 1995. After Parliament was prorogued, I moved to restore the bill, delivered the second reading speech on 26 September, 1996, and spoke in reply at the end of the second reading debate on 8 May 1997. The bill passed through this House with the valued support of the Opposition, Reverend the Hon. F. J. Nile and the Hon. Elaine Nile, and in particular the Hon. R. S. L. Jones. It then went to the other place where, at my request, the honourable member for Eastwood - a member of the Opposition, the shadow minister for police - picked it up and gave notice of it. From then on it was ignored and lay on the table of the other place while I negotiated in an attempt to persuade the Government to support it instead of opposing it.

Before the bill’s passage through this House I had attended innumerable meetings with the Government trying to reshape the bill in an effort to obtain support for it. The Government would not support it in this Chamber and indeed opposed it, as the Hon. M. J. Gallacher said. After the bill passed to the lower House I continued that series of meetings, discussions, negotiations - whatever one might call them - to get government support for the bill. Overall, I had repeated meetings with at least seven different Government people that I can remember. It seemed that as soon as we overcame one objection a new one surfaced or the person I had been negotiating with moved on and someone new took that person’s place.

Eventually a series of amendments was agreed upon between us which satisfied both sides. I was certainly happy with the amendments because the final form actually strengthened the bill. In several places the amendments inserted into the bill, at the Government’s suggestion, were provisions that I had taken out at the behest of the government mediator during earlier negotiations. But, this bill was obviously not destined for easy passage. After the Government and I finally agreed on its terms, I contacted the shadow police minister in the other place to tell him that the bill was ready to go - because, remember, he had "charge" of the bill. Standing orders in the lower House are quite specific about who owns a bill and it remained Mr Tink’s bill. But he informed me that there were to be no more private members’ days in the lower House and he therefore had no facility to bring it on.

Back to the Government. I was advised that the Government could not bring on Mr Tink’s bill so
Page 8709
in the end I agreed to its reintroduction by the Government because that was simply the only way it could be brought on. When that occurred the dogs really started barking. It was claimed that the Government had hijacked the bill. The honourable member for Gosford - the Hon. M. J. Gallacher is the president of his fan club - even claimed that the Government had stolen the bill he had introduced in the lower House in September 1996, a year after my bill! The honourable member for Coffs Harbour and the honourable member for Port Macquarie relied on that same strange claim during their contributions to the second reading debate in the other place.

To refute that and to clarify the situation I inform honourable members that, regardless of who is fostering it now, this remains the Home Invasion Bill that I introduced into this Chamber almost three years ago. I did not work hand-in-glove with the honourable member for Gosford, as the Hon. M. J. Gallacher suggested. In fact, I believe he tried to gazump me with his bill. This bill has no connection with the bill introduced by Mr Hartcher long after my original bill was introduced and which by its title seemed to limit the rights of defence against home invasion to the owner of a dwelling place and not to the occupant, as provided for in this bill.

There is a wonderful irony in the competition about whose bill this is. In summary, it seems that proposed legislation which a year ago was a hot potato that nobody in the lower House wanted to handle has suddenly become a tasty morsel that everyone wants to claim as his own. Whatever its difficult birth and adolescence, this is a good bill. It is an attempt to settle the concerns and anxieties of ordinary people who regard the steady rise of home invasion as a threatening phenomenon which they believe they are powerless to repel.

The Hon. M. J. Gallacher said that there is no definition of "home invasion". In both my second reading speeches on the bill I defined the characteristics of home invasion: it is set out. I made the distinction between the old-fashioned break and enter, in which the intruder enters the dwelling believing the occupants to be absent, and the newer home invasion in which the intruder or intruders deliberately break in because they know the occupants are within. They then threaten all or some of the occupants to force compliance with their demands. Those demands can range from robbery to assault to rape and even, as we have seen in some cases, murder. This is a dangerous and chilling development in crime in which the victims are used as levers, as it were, in their own downfall.

I believe that home invasion would be much less frequent and even less threatening if people were sure of what their rights of self-defence were. The Hon. M. J. Gallacher said that people are concerned about opportunism. From the time in the mid-1980s when the first home invasions were reported people have told me that they believed they were not allowed to defend themselves or their families in such an incident. My concerns about this incorrect perception within the general community date back more than a decade. During my days as a radio commentator I knew that as soon as another home invasion was reported my on-air phone lines would run hot with anxious people trying to find out what they could or could not do in the event of home invasion.

We were then, as now, living in an era of woolly political correctness which somehow seemed to make the criminal the victim of his own crime and in which courts almost apologised to criminals for sentencing them to gaol. Indeed, things are not much different now. People have the impression - correctly in many cases - that the law is on the side of the criminal. Time and again people told me that they believed that if they fought back against a home invader they would probably be charged by the police and might well end up in court trying to defend themselves against an assault charge or worse. It became so much a matter of concern that on a couple of occasions I invited into my studio for a couple of half-hour sessions John Dowd, the former Attorney General, to explain again and again that under the common law of this State people have the right to self-defence.

The DEPUTY-PRESIDENT (The Hon. D. J. Gay): Order! I remind the Hon. J. F. Ryan that members may not converse with people in the gallery.

The Hon. J. S. TINGLE: People did not understand the common law because it is too obscure. People who owned firearms were particularly concerned after 1992 when the new firearms laws introduced by the former police Minister Ted Pickering specified that a person could not obtain a firearms licence for the purposes of self-defence. That reinforced in the minds of many people the view that the Government was saying that they could not defend themselves at all. The issue became a matter of concern to those who joined together to create the political party that I have the honour to represent in this House, the Shooters Party.

I was elected to Parliament with clear instructions to introduce this bill, and although it has taken almost three years, I have persevered, both for my party and for me. There have been times when I felt it would never happen but my old Irish mother always told me, "You’re not beaten until you’re
Page 8710
dead", and if I have died, I have been too busy to notice. I persisted and the bill was introduced. This bill does several important things. The declaration contained within the bill makes a landmark announcement that the Parliament expressly declares that it is the public policy of New South Wales that its citizens have the right to enjoy absolute safety from attack by an intruder in their homes. It places into statute law, where ordinary people can see and read it, the clear right of a citizen to defend family, self and property against an intruder.

The bill removes the ludicrous right of an intruder to sue a householder if the intruder is injured while being illegally within a dwelling place. In the event of an occupant being charged after an affray with an intruder, it places the onus on the prosecution to prove that whatever action the occupant took in self-defence was not reasonable. It lays out parameters for what constitutes reasonable action and, in general, gives a badly needed reassurance to ordinary citizens that Parliament stands behind their right to self-defence. For the first time in a long while the bill is a determined attempt to swing the weight of the law back on the rights of the innocent and to move against the criminal. The Hon. M. J. Gallacher said that people should have those rights not only in their own homes but in retail and commercial premises.

The matter is being discussed and it was suggested that that measure could be included in this bill. However, there is a legal difference between citizens being in their living rooms with the front doors metaphorically closed, and retail and commercial premises which, by definition, have their doors open to invite trade. Commercial and retail premises will require separate legislation. However, on 8 September, when the Premier announced in the other place that the Government would now support the bill, there were the predictable cries of outrage. A handful of so-called civil libertarians - noisy lawyers and academics - rushed to the media with the usual silly claims that it would lead to a proliferation of guns in the home and that innocent people who knocked at the front door would be shot.

Even a deputy director of public prosecutions, when interviewed about the bill on the ABC program Stateline, remarked darkly that one should not forget where the bill originated, that is, from me, the Shooters Party representative in this Parliament. I gather in some way that was a significant drawback for the bill. I cannot but wonder whether that was the main reason for the contrived objections to the bill - that it was introduced by the Shooters Party representative in Parliament. Would so many people have mouthed off about it had it been introduced by the Christian Democratic Party, the Australian Democrats or the Greens?

In other words, was this bill being attacked on ideological grounds by people who are part of the curious anti-gun movement instead of it being considered on its merits? I think I know the correct answer to that question but, as always, none of these instant experts have actually seen or read the bill. If they had, they would have known that nothing in it contradicts the new gun laws in this State. They would have known that it very carefully specifies that people must be intruding inside the dwelling place - not just knocking on the front door - before any action can be taken against them. They would have known that nothing in the bill precludes a charge being laid against a householder if police believe they could prove in court that the action taken was unreasonable.

But would any of these critics have wanted to know the facts of the bill or would they have carried on, making dills of themselves because so many of them - the self-appointed guardians of some civil liberties - by definition, jump on the bandwagon? Their specious rubbish can be ignored except for asking one simple question of these terribly concerned and sternly righteous people: whose civil liberties are they concerned to protect - the innocent citizen peacefully enjoying the sanctuary of home or the thief, basher, hoon, rapist or murderer who rudely crashes into that sanctuary? The answer to that question is in the fact that not one of them in their anxious media appearances expressed any concern for, or interest in, the welfare, safety or rights of law-abiding citizens peacefully enjoying the amenities of their homes who become subject to sudden, unprovoked, terrifying attack.

Let us ignore the prattling of these would-be critics. This is a good bill. It will create law for ordinary people. It will reassure them of their rights and demonstrate that the law is there to back up those rights. As was said in another place, it is community-derived law not judge-derived law. Ordinary people want this law, as shown by the reaction to it since 8 September. Ordinary people are entitled to it. We must stop squabbling about who thought up the legislation, who is driving it through Parliament and even who tried to gazump it. We owe it to the community. Let us deliver it to the community.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Dorothy Isaksen.

Page 8711