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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (7 September) . . Page.. 3098 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

I mention those things to create a different picture, a different scenario. In those circumstances, we are dealing with very different issues-the responsibility of the authorities in relation to the undertaking of an intrusive, invasive procedure in circumstances where a person is resisting, is not consenting. The Labor Party is saying that that procedure should be undertaken only with the authority of a magistrate. We are suggesting that, as other jurisdictions have done and as the model code provided, in those circumstances where it is desired to take a swab from a non-consenting offender-a swab from the mouth or a swab from one of the body's cavities-only a magistrate should order the taking of that sample.

That is what is provided by the model code on which this legislation is based. That is what that code provided. It is what other states have provided. I cannot see how it affects the operation of this legislation and I cannot see how it affects the integrity of this legislation for the authority for that procedure to be transferred from a senior police officer to a magistrate. I think it is an appropriate change to procedures. If a person is to be forcibly restrained, if their mouth is to be forcibly opened and a swab taken from their cheek, I think that should be on the basis of an order from a magistrate. That is what the Labor Party is saying.

Mr Stefaniak: Why would a reasonable person refuse, though?

MR STANHOPE: That really does reflect an incredibly blinkered view of the world and of life, Mr Stefaniak. The world is made up of a range of very complex people. I know that a significant number of people, particularly people with mental disabilities of one sort or another, such as schizophrenia, who come into constant contact with the police react very negatively to the police in so many circumstances because of their life experiences.

I have received representations on that from the parents of, particularly, schizophrenics or people with a double diagnosis and they refer all the time to the particularly bad relationships which their children have with the police. I have had representations from parents who tell me that their schizophrenic children, as a matter of course, fight with the police whenever they see them, become aggressive and abusive. A whole range of people do a whole range of things for reasons that are beyond our ken. I am suggesting that we need to be sensitive to that fact.

The response was that if you have nothing to hide or nothing to be guilty of, why would you not submit? That is the answer for having this sort of provision. The suggestion is that you have something to hide. If you are schizophrenic, you are perhaps addicted to some illicit substance, you hate the police and you refuse, all of a sudden you are subjected to forcible restraint and having your mouth forced open; yet Mr Stefaniak responds, "If they are not guilty, why are they resisting or not consenting?" It is just part of the varied nature of humanity and this is a reasonable response to the varied human condition. If we are going to go mucking around in people's mouths without their consent, then it should be by order of a magistrate.

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