Page 1024 - Week 04 - Thursday, 7 May 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
be supporting it. The work of our health workers and our frontline community workers, including police officers, is always challenging, and during an emergency the intensity and the risks in this work are even more elevated. Of course governments should do what we can to protect our essential service workers.
The behaviour of a person intentionally spitting on or coughing at a police officer is atrocious conduct at any time. It is unacceptable conduct whether it is committed against a police officer, a health worker or any other person in the community. It should not and will not be tolerated. The offences proposed in Mrs Jones’s amendments are not changes that are appropriate at this stage. They are weaker than the existing offences which already address the same behaviours and which are being used effectively already to protect the community during this ongoing public health emergency.
ACT Policing has already charged two people recently for spitting and coughing in public while claiming to be infected with COVID-19. In both cases the victims were service sector workers and the perpetrators were charged with performing an act which causes public alarm under section 140A of the Crimes Act. The offence attracts a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, which obviously is a higher penalty than the provision proposed by Mrs Jones and is an appropriate way of dealing with such an appalling action.
The amendments also impose both strict liability and absolute liability. This government and this Assembly have, rightly, repeatedly exercised significant caution before creating offences of strict or absolute liability. We obviously welcome the comments that we have received and the caution that has been displayed when bills concerning strict liability or absolute liability have been considered by the standing committee, and that is indeed appropriate.
The types of offences for which an on-the-spot fine can be issued will also be difficult to enforce and clearly run a significant risk of needing court intervention in any event. There are other existing offences which cover the behaviours in the proposed amendments: general assault provisions, public alarm offences such as common assault, acts endangering life, acts endangering health, threat to inflict grievous bodily harm and affray.
We have looked very carefully over a number of weeks at this concept and we believe that the existing provisions in our criminal law are both effective and stronger than the proposed amendments. The existing provisions already protect not only our hardworking police but also all our important frontline workers and the entire community. The additional offence is not needed or appropriate at this stage and the government will not be supporting the amendments.
MR RATTENBURY (Kurrajong) (5.18): I strongly agree with Mrs Jones that the act of threatening to spit or actually spitting on somebody and claiming you have COVID-19 and creating the sort of alarm that goes with that is a reprehensible and disgusting act, and there is no place for it in our community. Unfortunately, we are hearing reports of it, both in this jurisdiction and in others.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video