Page 3285 - Week 10 - Thursday, 25 September 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Government amendment No 16 makes several improvements to the search powers by requiring that police officers need to be the same sex as the person being searched or, where that is not practicable, another person of the same sex or a sex nominated by the person to be searched is present while the search is conducted. By requiring written records of searches, including details such as the date, time and place of the search, by requiring police to not detain a person for longer than is reasonably necessary to conduct the search, and by requiring police to agree to a request to search a person in a less public place, if it is practicable to do so—these are appropriate protections which work to mitigate concerns about inappropriate use of the search power.
Government amendments Nos 17 and 19 amend the power in the bill that allows police to require a person to state their name and home address. It allows a person to refuse to comply with the request to provide a name and home address if they do not intend to, or wish to, enter the event venue. In my view this is an improvement but not an ideal amendment. I will reiterate the commentary from the scrutiny of bills committee, as it explains this issue quite well. It said:
The question of when and how is it justifiable to impose on a person an obligation to provide their name and address to the police has been considered by law reform bodies, and in particular by the Australian Law Reform Commission … in Criminal Investigation (Report No 2, Interim) (1975). The ALRC noted that while “[s]tatutory power to require a person to furnish his name and address exists at present in most jurisdictions only in relation to traffic offences[, it] is nonetheless, a power which policemen need, and exercise in practice”. The Commission thus recommended:
The power to require a person to furnish his name and address, now available only in traffic cases, should be extended to situations where the policeman has reasonable grounds for believing that the person can assist him in relation to an offence which has been, may have been, or may be committed. The police officer should be required to specify the reason for which the person’s name and address is sought, and there should be a reciprocal right, in such a situation, for a citizen to demand and receive from the policeman particulars of his own identity.
The ALRC linked its recommendations to the means it recommended for enforcing safeguards against an excess of the powers of the police. It instanced “disciplinary action, the exclusionary rule, and the civil action for false imprisonment”.
So while the committee recommended in particular that a person be given the option of not providing their name and address if they do not want to enter the event, and this is what the amendment does, I also think that ideally the amendment would only require a person to give their name when there is an appropriate reason.
I support government amendment No 22 because it clarifies that an authorised person or police officer can only direct a person to leave a venue for 24 hours, when they have already been asked to leave, and has refused to leave, and the person has entered or attempted to enter the venue. Again, it is an appropriate limitation to help ensure that powers of police and authorised officers are used appropriately.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video