Page 3325 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 September 2005

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .


MR PRATT: Yes, but I do not know whether they are required to produce it on demand. If they are in the position of issuing on-the-spot fines, we would like to see that rectified. If the minister has that covered in legislation then perhaps my amendment will not be necessary. But should it be necessary, I am going to table it anyway. I seek to table the following amendment, which seeks to ensure that an authorised person is clearly recognisable as an authorised officer for the purpose of enforcing the act. So I hereby table an amendment that would seek to ensure that all city rangers who will be issuing on-the-spot fines will mandatorily be demonstrating, displaying and producing ID. I would hope the minister would be able to respond and tell me that that is not necessary; that that is covered. I seek leave, therefore, to table my amendment.

Leave granted.

MR PRATT: I table the following amendment:

Clause 5

Page 3, line 9—

omit subclause (3), substitute

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to the exercise of a power by an authorised person under section 17(1) where the authorised person is clearly recognisable as an authorised officer for the purposes of enforcing the Act.

With the addition of that amendment, unless, of course, the minister comes back and says it is not necessary, I would otherwise commend the bill. But I would also encourage the minister to start rectifying those other areas the opposition has concern about relating to littering and the general look of our landscape. I would therefore encourage him to take further actions.

MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (10.45): I am pleased to support the amendment put forward by Mr Pratt. Obviously, the purpose of the Litter Act is to maintain the amenity and tidiness of the ACT’s stunning public spaces. It is a purpose I support and one that I think is supported by the vast majority of Canberra’s citizens. I would like to speak in support of Mr Pratt’s amendment. I think the omission of a requirement to ensure that authorities with the power to enforce the act are unambiguously identified is an area of possible deficiency or concern. It is important because, if authorities are allowed to approach and potentially fine citizens without first identifying themselves, there is potential for situations to arise. The minister, by way of comment across the chamber, has decided that they will be identifiable. But we all see situations in various areas of enforcement where off-duty people, and sometimes people who have no authority, seek to enforce laws. So it would be a desirable requirement that identification be produced.

In a number of fields of endeavour—and taxation enforcement is one with which I am familiar, having worked in that field—it is a requirement straight up to ensure that there is clear identification, as one is exercising powers that are considerable and conferred under the federal law. The amendment would remove any doubt, unless the minister has some prevailing reason to suggest that the amendment put forward is redundant.


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .