Page 3819 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 8 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In relation to Mr Humphries's comments, apart from the attempt, which Mr Stefaniak repeated, to say, "This is the Government just repeating what we did", the fundamental difference between this very comprehensive package and the very simple, quick and dirty exercise - as I have described it in the media - that Mr Humphries introduced last year, which dealt only with name and address, is that Mr Humphries's Bill included that prospective power, the triggering mechanism being the belief that something is about to happen. If there is something that the Liberals seem to have an obsession with, it is our fundamental objection to the move-on powers.
I notice that there is a Bill going through in New South Wales that has excited enormous opposition from the Law Society, from the bar and from judges, where there is a provision for preventive detention. If there is a belief that someone may go out and commit an offence, there is power for a court to lock them up for 12 months on the basis of the belief that they may be able to go and do something. That is the point at which we draw a very firm line in the sand and say, "We will not cross it". I can assure Mr Moore that our proven track record on civil liberties on this issue over many years will never allow us to cross that line. What we have done is support the introduction of uniform legislation for the Commonwealth and the ACT on police powers of search and arrest. It is, as I said earlier, significantly balanced. The big difference from Mr Humphries's original Bill is that this does not go to prospective conduct.
Mr Humphries made another important point, about forensic samples. There is a requirement in this Bill, at proposed section 349ZX, in relation to the taking of forensic samples - that is, a body cavity search or other such intrusive, intimate sampling - that it can be done only by a medical practitioner acting at the request of a senior police officer, that being the triggering mechanism. I would also say to Mr Humphries that the issue of intrusive body cavity searches for forensic sampling is one that is high on the agenda of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. There is a serious attempt being made across Australia to develop a uniform set of laws relating to police powers for this type of sampling. It becomes particularly important as DNA technology increases and as the forensic importance of DNA evidence becomes much greater. There has been a very sensible agreement between Attorneys-General of all political persuasions that we will refrain from trying to pass our own laws in relation to forensic sampling. We will work to get a uniform approach. So, our proposed section 349ZX really restates the current law, contained in subsection 353A(2) of the Crimes Act, which provides the protection for medical practitioners doing the intrusive body cavity searches. But I hope that, sometime next year, there will be a more comprehensive set of laws dealing with that issue agreed to by all States and Territories.
Mr Moore said that he thinks we have gone too far in extending the ability to ask for name and address beyond indictable offences, which is in the Commonwealth Act, to summary offences as well. We did highlight in the explanatory memorandum that we had done that. I would make two points. Firstly, we differ from the Commonwealth Act in another respect. We have put in an additional safeguard. That is subsection (4) of the relevant proposed section, which says that, when a police officer asks for the name and address, they are required to make a written record of the grounds for the belief that an offence has been committed or that the person can assist in inquiries in relation to an offence which has been committed. That involves additional paperwork. One thing that we all know about police officers is that, like many people, they do not like paperwork.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .