Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 2054 ..

MR MOORE (11.52): Mr Speaker, in rising to support this Bill, rather than reiterate the sensible points that were made by Ms Follett, I would like to say that I concur with those. I congratulate the Government on the protocols they have put in place for the protection of the civil liberties of people and the respect they entail for individuals.

One of the interesting things about proposed new subsections 349ZX(6) and (7) is that, where the examination is carried out and a medical practitioner is assisted by another person, that person must be of the same sex. Of course, that does not apply to the medical practitioner. I spent quite a time trying to determine whether it should. At this stage I am prepared to accept the legislation as it is, but I believe that now, with such a wide range of people who are medical practitioners, a change which has occurred over the last 20 years or so, we are approaching the time when it will be appropriate for individuals to insist that the medical practitioner carrying out an examination is a person of the same sex as well.

I am aware of a number of people who believe it is appropriate that their own medical practitioner is of the same sex. As it so happens, I am not one of those people. My medical practitioner is a woman and I am very comfortable with that. However, the time is approaching rapidly, I think, when, as an Assembly, we should consider that protocol as applying to this sort of legislation. I leave the Minister to think over that for the time being because, when it is appropriate for us to change the protocol, we should not just do it to this particular piece of legislation but each time such protocols apply.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (11.54), in reply: Mr Speaker, I thank members of the Opposition and crossbench for their support for the legislation. I suppose it is right to express some concern about the thrust of legislation like this. What we are effectively doing is forcing people to surrender, albeit, very small components of their body tissue for the purposes of forensic analysis. That is a fairly serious step to take. Albeit that it had been assumed in the past that that power existed in the hands of the police, it is a fairly significant step to reaffirm this in legislation and to grant the power to police to be able to proceed to take such samples, albeit now with the clear imprimatur of a magistrate.

However, I emphasise that it is most important, for the purposes of modern crime detection, that it be possible to take such samples. They are an integral part of the way in which cases are prepared against offenders, particularly for violent offences or for sexually violent offences. In these cases it is most important that that capacity exists. I am sure members would support reasonable measures on the part of police and the courts to be able to adduce evidence, or obtain evidence for adducing in the court, to properly convict those people who are guilty of such offences. I thank members for their support for the amendment and acknowledge their concern at the same time.

On the point raised by Mr Moore of same sex doctors conducting examinations, I acknowledge that this, in certain circumstances, could be a concern. Can I allay members' concerns by saying that in the vast majority of circumstances this ought not be a matter of concern to individuals involved in this procedure. Most of the procedures that would be covered by this legislation would be, in a sense, non-invasive or non-threatening to the privacy of the individual. The taking of a hair sample, a sample of saliva or a blood sample, for example, could be done without the accused person or person under examination having to take their clothes off, for example.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .