Page 3070 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 15 September 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES: Not at all, Madam Speaker. An offence shall be committed where a person who has been told that it is an offence not to comply with such a direction from the police does not comply with that direction. A fine shall be set at the level of $40. A police officer might challenge a person to produce evidence of a name and address being correct; that is, some documentary evidence in most circumstances. Failure to do so without reasonable excuse is an offence. The penalty for that is also $40. Madam Speaker, an example of a reasonable excuse might be if people do not have on them any identification to prove their name or their address.
The power to demand certain information cuts both ways. It is not only a power to direct a person to provide his or her name and address but also a power for the person so requested to provide the information to require a police officer to state his or her name, rank and badge number. That is a reasonable power. It is a power which governments in other States, including Labor governments, exercise.
Members interjected.
MR HUMPHRIES: I hear the cackles and the sounds from those opposite. I will be very interested to hear what they have to say about these powers. I realise that they are sensitive, Madam Speaker. After the mauling they got in the Canberra Times this morning, I would be sensitive too. I know that they would be cracking a bit under the pressure, but I would ask them to remain quiet for a little while until I finish my speech.
Madam Speaker, this power is a power exercised by many other police forces around the country. I heard an interjection suggesting that this power creates a police state. The Minister who made that comment, the police Minister, is really making a rather unfortunate reflection on his colleagues in Western Australia, Tasmania, South Australia and the Northern Territory, where these powers are already exercised. He might ask himself why Labor governments in three of those States have tolerated such powers for such a long time.
Madam Speaker, the fine is deliberately set at the lower end of the scale. This is not the sort of matter which we feel, at this stage at least, warrants a very heavy penalty. There is a fine of $40 and no imprisonment penalty. The South Australian Labor Government's penalty is a $1,000 fine or up to six months' imprisonment. I do not support that level of severity, but I do think that if it is good enough for them to have such a power it certainly is good enough for us to have such a power as well. Legislation exists in similar terms, as I said, in South Australia, the Northern Territory, Tasmania and Western Australia. Legislation of this kind was promised by the Liberal Party in Victoria during the 1992 election campaign and is being considered also in Queensland.
For the benefit of those opposite, I might just run through what it is that other States do. In Queensland, summary powers do not exist to demand the name and address of a suspect or a person who might be able to provide assistance on matters relating to a crime, but specific provisions of a similar kind do occur in legislation. For example, the Traffic Act enables police to demand the name and address of a motorist. The Flora and Fauna Act, for example, enables police to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .