Page 857 - Week 03 - Thursday, 2 April 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
indignity of being subjected to a strip search is minimised. These rules include the requirement for the search to be conducted in privacy, by a member of the same sex and must not be able to be seen by a person of the opposite sex. In the case of a transgender or an intersex person, they may request the gender of the officer to conduct the search.
Strip searches may also be conducted under s186 and s188 of the Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT). These searches may be undertaken to prevent the concealment, loss or destruction of evidence connected with an offence. Under the legislation, a police officer is authorised to search the person or the clothing that he or she is wearing and any property under his or her immediate control.
Due to limitations in ACT Policing’s case management system Police Real-time On-line Management Information System (PROMIS), ACT Policing is unable to quantify the number of times and locations of strip searches conducted by ACT Policing in 2017-18 and 2018-19.
2. ACT Policing does not have a dedicated drug detection dog unit, however ACT Policing has the ability to utilise drug detection dogs from the Australian Federal Police (AFP) Specialist Response Group.
ACT Policing does not use drug detection dogs at public ACT events and historically have not used detection dogs to screen patrons at public events. In many cases, ACT Policing use drug detection dogs when executing search warrants at premises where police believe drugs may be present.
The AFP uses drug detection dogs at major airports, however in the ACT this duty is not undertaken by ACT Policing officers.
Municipal services—footpaths
(Question No 2911)
Ms Lawder asked the Minister for City Services, upon notice, on 14 February 2020:
(1) On 30 January 2020, I received through an Freedom of Information request, 11 government documents stating the times the footpath running east west along Muntz Street, Chisholm, approximately opposite 26 Muntz Street, was repaired recently. The first 10 documents showed a series of repairs to this footpath, the total cost of which reached $10 143 and the final document stated nine suburbs for footpath repair, the total cost of which reached $179 432, in relation to the final sum stated ($179 432), is this a summary of all the costs of footpath repairs in those areas over the period of a year.
(2) Can the Minister provide an itemised summary of how this final sum was reached.
(3) Is the $10 143 worth of repairs to Chisholm included in this sum or is it an additional cost.
(4) Why was asphalt used for one of these repairs.
(5) If the $10 143 is not included, what further work was conducted on footpaths in Chisholm.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video