Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2005 Week 11 Hansard (Tuesday, 20 September 2005) . . Page.. 3332 ..
or to a whole stack of other ones—OH&S inspectors and WorkCover inspectors—that you cannot say diddly-squat to anybody unless you first produce your badge. They want to turn our rangers and graffiti inspectors into registered arms of the CIA or the FBI. Well, good luck to them! We are not into that draconian, theatrical nonsense. We are, in fact, more into getting the thing done. That is why there have been fines imposed, and we are going to tighten up this legislation.
Mrs Burke: What does “draconian” mean?
MR HARGREAVES: Mr Speaker, I will treat Mrs Burke’s interjections with the contempt they are due.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
MR PRATT (Brindabella) (11.13): I move amendment No 1 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 3416].
Mr Speaker, this amendment is necessary because we do not think that this bill covers essential requirements as to authorities being able to demonstrate exactly who they are. The minister is quite wrong: we have read this legislation right through and we do not believe that subsections (1), (2) and (3) of proposed section 17, which allow a person who is being fronted by an inspector to ask the inspector to produce ID, are tight enough. We have read this legislation. We are not happy with that proposed section. We do not believe that it is tight enough. We also believe that proposed section 17 (3), while a useful component, simply does not go far enough. Consequently, I am seeking to amend this bill in a way that will compel a ranger or an officer prescribed to carry out these sorts of interventions to display their ID.
Under proposed section 15, which relates to ID cards, there is a useful component in the legislation which details that a ranger must carry an ID card. Yes, the legislation does make sure that there is an instruction and a direction for an officer to carry an appropriate ID card and the legislation does lay down the requirements for what that ID card must look like. It provides the standards for what that ID should be, but all it simply says is that the chief executive must give an authorised person an ID card stating that person’s name and that the person is an authorised person and that the identity card must show a recent photograph, the card’s date and other bits and pieces. The legislation does not say that the officer must ensure that that ID card is completely visible at all times.
Whilst the minister certainly would want rangers to be wearing ID, the legislation does not stipulate that they must wear ID at all times. We are saying that there is a gap in this legislation which we are seeking to fill by introducing an amendment which compels an officer to have ID or at least a component of that ID, perhaps a regulation number, displayed at all times, not simply worn on a shirt and covered by a jacket on a cool evening. When an officer approaches a person and then seeks to issue a fine for an