Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2005 Week 11 Hansard (Tuesday, 20 September 2005) . . Page.. 3334 ..


Mr Pratt: I tremble in my boots, Mr Speaker.

MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Pratt!

MR HARGREAVES: When the rangers go out to do anything, they wear a name badge.

Mr Pratt: It is not always displayed.

MR HARGREAVES: It is always displayed. Everybody is human and every now and again, with the best of intentions, someone will put a jumper over a name badge. Okay. What makes Mr Pratt think for a second that, if we made them wear a photo of themselves on their chest, that would not happen again. It is a really daft idea.

Mr Speaker, the legislation says quite clearly, and it applies to the health promotion example as much as it does anything else, that a person, that is, the litterer, must comply with a requirement made of the person if the authorised officer complies with any request by the person.

Mr Pratt: Yes, but it is contingent on the person asking.

MR SPEAKER: Order! Mr Hargreaves, resume your seat. Mr Pratt, during the in-principle stage of the bill, I had to call you to order several times and you are continuing to interject. I warn you that I am not going to tolerate any more of that in the course of the debate on this bill.

MR HARGREAVES: Proposed section 17 (4) (b), in conjunction with proposed section 17 (3), protects a person suspected of littering against some unauthorised person coming up to them in the middle of the night and saying, “Hey, I saw you drop that stuff and I am now going to give you an on-the-spot fine.” That will never happen. What will happen, and what has happened, is that a ranger will appear out of the dark wearing a khaki uniform which has “Department of Urban Services” written all over it and he will have in his wallet, perhaps so that somebody cannot nick it, one of those little flipouts, the same as detectives and health protection people have, with an ID card with his piccie on it.

For Dr Foskey’s benefit, we are not trying here to protect the rights of somebody who is littering, someone caught littering. A ranger who challenges someone like that and who has a ticket book in his hand and is going to write out a ticket would have an ID card in a little wallet, where most of these rangers and inspectors have their ID. If the person says, “Give us a look at your ID,” and the ranger does not do so, that would be an illegal booking under this legislation. The rights of the person would have been protected already; it would be illegal. Of course, it would never happen.

Mr Speaker, if you look at the amendment you will see that it would not actually do what Mr Pratt is trying to make it do. It says:

Subsection (1) does not apply … where the authorised person is clearly recognisable as an authorised officer for the purposes of enforcing the Act.


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . .