Page 3331 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 September 2005

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

MR HARGREAVES: other than Mr Cornwell’s idea of stopping people under 18 from having spray cans. I would like to know from that side at some stage what it is—

Mr Pratt: It is on the record, John.

MR HARGREAVES: I hear that it may be on the record but perhaps it is really a piece of paper with, “Please turn over” on both sides. That is what I think it is, because there is no substance in it, there is nothing in it. They say to us, “Catch the people who are doing the graffiti!” Do they tell us how we are going to do that? Do they tell us how we are going to get all of this money? I know what we will do, Mr Speaker. We will take the money off education and the hospitals and pour it into graffiti management. That is what we will do.

The government will not be supporting Mr Pratt’s amendment. In section 17—this is a new one—sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) (b) ask the authorised person to produce his or her identity card for inspection by the person, and the person does not have to comply with any direction unless the authorised person produces that item. That seems to me to just about cover it.

What a shame it is that Mr Pratt had not read that part of the amendment bill. And what a shame it is that Mr Mulcahy had not read it; and neither had Mrs Burke, until I pointed it out to her just this morning. It is a shame that they did that. They are now scurrying about the place trying to say that we have to beef it up: what we want to do is have these littering CIA agents who are going to run around the place in the middle of the night. There is this dude who is going to drop this horrible lounge suite next to a charity bin. What these guys are going to do is spring out of the darkness, hold up their shield and say, “I’m from the FIB litter team; I’ve got this star—deputy sheriff!” No; that is one of your blokes.

They are going to have a CIA shield on the thing and they must say, “Look at this please, this is my ID. Don’t look at my name badge on my uniform; don’t worry about the fact that you have the right at law to say show me your ID.” They are going to say that. Unlike police detectives, unlike health inspectors, unlike a range of other people who have the powers to require the citizenry to do something, these people are the only people who will be required to say, “You’d better have a look at my ID first.”

The police charge people without necessarily showing them ID; they can do it. The health inspectors go into a shop or restaurant and say, “I’m a health inspector. Guess what? Here is an on-the-spot fine.” They do not necessarily say, “You’d better have a look at my ID before I do this.” If the person receiving the fine says, “I don’t believe you are a health inspector, I believe that, in fact, you are a bricklayer, ” then the person is required under the act, as soon as requested, to show ID. This piece of legislation requires the ranger to produce his ID if requested.

I think this is another piece of draconian back-pedalling on their part. They have been sprung for not reading this amendment bill. They did not read section 17. They assumed there was nothing there, so they came up with this thing. Now they are backing up saying it is not good enough. They are saying it is just not tight enough. The next thing you know, we will be seeing amendments coming from this lot to the Health Promotion Act

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