Page 363 - Week 02 - Thursday, 8 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There are provisions around search powers and screening powers in Commonwealth legislation. Much of that material is very similar in terms of ensuring that people conducting the searches do it in a respectful manner and that we do not have males searching females in a close way where that can be avoided—and vice versa. That is pretty standard legislative practice, and that should be the legislative practice. We need to ensure that these search powers are not abused. These are particularly vulnerable young people. They need to be protected, but at the same time they sometimes need to be protected from each other, and that is where the balance comes in.
There are no penalties. I do not particularly make comment on that; I just raise it because I know that in, say, some of the commonwealth legislation where there are search powers there are penalties where officers overstep the mark or breach particular laws. I would just put that out as something that can be looked at. It does not need to be a severe penalty, but at times a penalty can be something of a deterrent when you do get rogue officers or rogue employees who might want to breach some of these provisions.
This morning I raised another issues with one of Ms Gallagher’s staff members. I had a brief discussion on one of the provisions, in relation to section 401AK, which concerns the requirements of scanning, frisk and ordinary searches. I referred to subsections (2), (3) and (4). Subsection (2) says:
A frisk search or ordinary search of a detainee must not be conducted in the presence or sight of—
(a) another detainee; or
(b) someone else whose presence is not necessary for the search.
Subsection (3) says:
A frisk search of a detainee must be done by a youth detention officer of the same sex as the detainee.
Subsection (4) exempts (3). It says:
Subsection (3) does not apply if the chief executive believes on reasonable grounds that—
(a) there is an imminent and serious threat to the personal safety of the detainee or someone else; and
(b) compliance with subsection (3) would exacerbate the threat.
I raise that because I thought it was somewhat curious that subsection (2) is not also exempted. That says that a frisk search or ordinary search must not be conducted in the presence or sight of other detainees where there is an imminent threat. I was assured by the member of Ms Gallagher’s staff that that has been considered, and that there still may be some circumstances where, if the threat is so serious, that search would be conducted in a way not in accordance with subsection (2).
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .