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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3097 ..

MR STANHOPE: I would, thank you, Mr Speaker.

Leave granted.

MR STANHOPE: I move:

Mr Speaker, I had discussed during the debate in principle the range of amendments which the Labor Party would be moving. These amendments go to the issue that I spoke of before, namely, the Labor Party's view that the taking of a buccal or mouth swab is an intimate procedure and does involve an invasive procedure-entry to one of the body's cavities. I take the point that Mr Stefaniak makes that, if the suspect or alleged offender consents to the procedure, there is absolutely no issue. But there is an issue in relation to those people who, for whatever reason, do not consent.

Mr Stefaniak: I did not say that.

MR STANHOPE: I hope that I have not misstated your position, Mr Stefaniak. I thought you were agreeing that in those circumstances where an alleged offender or a suspect consents to a buccal swab they are really-

Mr Stefaniak: Consent to doing it themselves, Jon, which they can do, rather than having someone do it for them.

MR STANHOPE: That is what I mean. I am agreeing that it is not an issue.

Mr Stefaniak: But I think it is quite important that people do have that done to them even if they do not consent.

MR STANHOPE: But then again, there is the other circumstance which you did not discuss, Mr Stefaniak, of when they do not consent to the swab or to the giving of a sample, and the circumstances change dramatically.

The circumstances change dramatically when a person, for whatever reason, does not consent and force is required. The legislation enables the police to use whatever force they reasonably need to use to take the sample and the whole scenario changes quite dramatically. We then have the scenario of the person being forced onto a bench, forced up against a wall or put in an arm lock. The circumstance then is that the person's mouth must be forced open. Mr Rugendyke indicated earlier that he had had discussions about the level of training. He was concerned about the police, and quite rightly so. That is a concern that would arise in relation to the taking of a sample from a non-consenting suspect.

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