Page 3815 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 8 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, as I have said, this is better late than never. I accept that the Minister has seen or has been persuaded that there are important reasons for police to have a simple power which exists in every other jurisdiction in Australia except, on my latest information, New South Wales. Even in New South Wales, I understand, the legislation has been considered. There are many other respects in which this legislation deals with the overall power of the police to do a number of things. Safeguard protections are built into that in broad terms. I have no particular quibble with most of those provisions. I assume that they will be effective and will protect the citizens of the Territory, but at the same time will not be unduly onerous to those who need to apply them. We should bear in mind that they are being applied by people who are acting in the interests of the community being safe and secure from the effects and implications of crime. Madam Speaker, as I have said, some of these things will need to be examined in the process whereby they are actually put into operation. I hope and assume that over a period of time we will ascertain that we have a workable system which does, indeed, afford those protections.
There are a couple of small matters that I want to raise in connection with this Bill. I note that there are provisions dealing with strip searches and that it is made clear that a strip search does not include a capacity to search body cavities. I assume that members of the Customs Service have that power in respect of people entering the country. I do not know whether it will be considered by police to be the sort of power that they would need to exercise. If the police cannot exercise it under this legislation, I do not know whether it is possible for a court to order such a search to take place. I pose this question because I recall the case in New Zealand not so long ago where a person was apprehended and the police or the Customs Service believed that he was carrying drugs. Apparently, they did not have the power under New Zealand law to actually conduct a cavity search; so they had to detain the person until he excreted what they believed were the drugs concerned. I think that the person was detained for some 30 days and still had not produced the goods.
Mr Connolly: He must have been very uncomfortable after 30 days.
MR HUMPHRIES: I am sure that he would have been very uncomfortable indeed after 30 days. I do not know what he was eating over those 30 days, but he would have been most uncomfortable. Obviously, the penalties for the offence must have been worth more than he was prepared to put up with in terms of the pain. I hope that we would not have to get to that ludicrous stage in the ACT. The Minister may be able to enlighten us about what is going to happen in these circumstances, if they ever arise. I look forward to being enlightened about that. Apart from that, Madam Speaker, the legislation is supported by the Opposition. I am confident that, in due course, it will see us proceeding down the path of having a single place where citizens of the Territory can consult the law to see what are the provisions that govern their rights in these circumstances.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .