Page 1021 - Week 04 - Thursday, 7 May 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I note that there are minor changes in definitions in the Firearms Act and Prohibited Weapons Act, all of which are technical and administrative in nature.
To speed up the process tonight, I will quickly speak to the amendments that have been circulated in my name. They make a change to the Crimes Act and the Magistrates Court (Crimes Infringement Notices) Regulation 2008.
One amendment creates a new offence of intentionally spitting or coughing on a police officer during the COVID-19 emergency, with a threat of spreading the illness. While the offence will attract a maximum penalty of 200 penalty units or two years imprisonment, which is in line with common assault, the whole of the policy is about giving the police the power to issue an on-the-spot fine of $1,500, similar to changes that have been made in New South Wales.
The new offence is made up of three parts: the person intentionally coughs, spits or expectorates on another person; the other person is a police officer; and the conduct would likely cause a reasonable person to fear that coronavirus could have been transmitted. We have already seen cases like this in the ACT. Should this occur, the offender can be issued with a $1,500 fine.
Threatening our police with coronavirus is disgusting and should not be tolerated. The frontline police officers out there on the beat every day, risking their lives for our community, do not get to work from home; they do not even ask to work from home. But they do want this provision. Can you imagine going to work and having someone spit on you or cough on you or your mate and tell them that it will give them the viral illness that we have all been working so hard to prevent? It would put the fear of death into you. It would make you very concerned for your own family. It would be a traumatic and challenging experience. Police do not go around in PPE. They carry it in case they have a concern that they need it, but there can easily be a situation where someone is spat on or coughed on, as has occurred already, and they do not have PPE on.
The police themselves, through their representative organisation, the AFPA, have asked for this change. My concern is that police need a fast response to shut down such dangerous behaviours. Our police want this temporary power and it should be given to them. I cannot see why we would not give it to them. I hope that the government, when we vote on the amendment, will support it. As a parliament, it is important that we fully back our police and ensure that they have the powers and protections that they need to do their job.
MR BARR (Kurrajong—Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Social Inclusion and Equality, Minister for Tourism and Special Events and Minister for Trade, Industry and Investment) (5.08), in reply: I thank members for their contributions to the debate and their willingness to quickly, comprehensively and constructively examine and discuss the components of the legislation. I will speak just briefly, to provide some further detail on proposed changes that I have responsibility for as Treasurer. I touched on the Payroll Tax Act elements in my introductory speech.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video