Page 2293 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 29 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The bill then states that an offence against this section is a strict liability offence, and we then define what “disorderly” means. “Disorderly” includes violent or riotous behaviour, and “violent” is a new definition on top of what is already contained in the old section 392. “Near”, for a public place or school, includes within view of, or hearing of, the place or the school.
“Offensive” is defined as “intimidating, indecent, threatening, abusive, obscene or insulting”, whereas currently it is just “riotous, indecent, offensive or insulting”. “Abusive” and “intimidating” clearly can be very offensive types of actions which people might undertake. I think it is important, and the police think it is important, that they be added, to ensure that the range of actions is covered by the section.
The new offence of “offensive language” was very effectively used until it was discontinued. It has been reactivated in a number of states. It is simply not acceptable for anyone in our society—innocent people going about their business—to be abused, to be subject to a tirade of often very aggressive, offensive language. I know that the use of common swear words these days is quite usual, but the real problem relates very much to how they are used, and it can be terribly offensive. I rely on the good sense, training and ability of our police in the Australian Capital Territory to use properly any powers they have. They have a strong history of using their discretion sensibly in terms of knowing when to book someone, when not to book someone and knowing when to caution someone.
We have experienced police officers; in fact, more so now perhaps than last year, because at least there are some more police in the beat squad now—and I commend the attorney for that—who are able to use that discretion sensibly. This proposed new section, which is just a revision of the old one, states that a person must not use offensive language in or near a public place or school. It is a strict liability offence and it defines what “offensive” means—that is, “intimidating, indecent, threatening, abusive, obscene or insulting”.
I think that is a very important addition. Only last night, I was walking with a couple of women during the meal break, and one person was really quite abusive to us. Whilst he was not threatening us, he was using absolutely foul language, and it was his aggressive, loud tone that scared a number of people, including some elderly people who were in the vicinity. Normally, the police would ask that person to tone it down and he would be warned, but if that person continued to use language in that form, under my new section they would be able to be given an infringement notice. If they carried on even further, you would probably get to a charge type situation.
With these sorts of offences, quite often it is because people have too much liquor on board. An infringement notice will curtail the activity. It is a nexus breaker. The person will go home, probably wake up in the morning and realise that they had made an absolute goose of themselves the night before, and pay the infringement notice. The thing about it is that it is not a conviction; it is not recorded. It is the same as a traffic notice. In many cases people who seem to be going over the top but who are otherwise reasonable members of the community will benefit from something like this because it will not appear on their record, and it also saves any embarrassment in having to go to court, let alone the immense amount of police and court time that is taken up.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .