Page 1025 - Week 04 - Thursday, 7 May 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In terms of the proposed amendment, I am not, however, convinced that it is the right way to proceed. I note the comments from the attorney, and I have had a look at the legislation myself. Section 140A of the Crimes Act clearly is applicable in these circumstances, and I note the attorney’s comment that there have already been two cases in the ACT where charges have been laid. I think that demonstrates that we have effective laws in place that can deal with this situation, so I am not convinced that a particular provision is needed in these circumstances. We evidently have suitable provisions in the laws to deal with this matter. I note that the attorney referred to other provisions as well, such as common assault.
Given that we have already seen the application of section 140A, it seems that police have appropriate, adequate and, in fact, quite strong powers, with very severe penalties at the higher end, to ideally dissuade and then provide a penalty for this kind of behaviour if somebody goes down that path.
MR COE (Yerrabi—Leader of the Opposition) (5.19): Madam Speaker, I rise to support my colleague’s amendment. It is very important that we as a legislature send a message to the community that (a) we back our police officers and (b) the thought of coughing or spitting to threaten or assault a police officer during this COVID-19 emergency is reprehensible. Amongst the police officers that we have spoken to, I do not think there is clarity that there is sufficient legislation to charge, prosecute and convict somebody who does either of these things.
Given the severity of what we are talking about today, if there is any doubt at all about this issue, we are best clarifying it while we have the chance. It would be a great shame if, in the coming weeks or months, such an action were to take place—if somebody who did have the virus were to cough or spit on a police officer—and the person was unable to be convicted because of insufficiencies in legislation. That would be a tragedy. We have an opportunity to clear this up right now.
The Attorney-General has said that there is appropriate legislation right now. I note that he has said that. But the police association and many individual officers have expressed concern that they are not confident that there is sufficient coverage for them.
It is clear that this amendment is not going to get up, but I urge the Attorney-General and/or the minister for police to at least issue an advice or an instruction to police officers and the AFPA about the legal advice they have so that at least they are on the same page as the police officers. I think we owe them that.
I thank Mrs Jones for bringing forward this very thoughtful amendment. It is disappointing that we are not going to provide clarity in this space. I very much hope that the Attorney-General’s advice is correct and I hope that he provides that advice to the men and women on the front line keeping us safe.
MS STEPHEN-SMITH (Kurrajong—Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Minister for Children, Youth and Families and Minister for Health) (5.23): I will speak very quickly in response to Mr Coe’s comments, because the attorney cannot speak again. I would just reiterate what the attorney said: that, in fact,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video