Page 861 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 20 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (11.03): First off, I flag that the Greens do have concern with one section of this bill. I have circulated an amendment that I will move later which seeks to remove subsection 58B(5). I will discuss the reasons for this in more detail shortly. This bill makes two changes to the ACT’s road transport legislation. Firstly, it seeks to give police and authorised officers the power to direct a person to remove an item that obscures the person’s face. Secondly, it refines the concept of repeat offender and first offender for several serious driving offences.
I will first discuss the power for the police to direct removal of head coverings. The Greens support this in principle. We recognise that the police need to be able to confirm the identity of road users in order to enforce road transport legislation. The government and the directorate have taken a good approach to the sensitive issue of people who wear items that obscure their face for cultural or religious reasons.
I understand that the government officials from JACS and ACT Policing discussed the proposals in detail with the ACT Muslim Consultative Council prior to drafting the legislation. I understand that there was considerable discussion about the cultural and religious history of the tradition of wearing face coverings and about the differing views within the Islamic community about the practice. This included differences of opinion within the community as to whether the practice or observance is religious or cultural. This resulted in the use of the words “religious or cultural grounds” in the bill.
My office spoke on this issue with Mr Ikebal Patel, who is a member of the council and president of Muslims Australia. Mr Patel confirmed that the council supports the work of the police and law enforcement agencies. Its concern is to ensure that if Muslim women are required to remove a niqab or burqa to show their face, this is facilitated with care and appropriate sensitivity. Mr Patel also pointed out that full face covering is not strictly an Islamic requirement. The council takes the view that it is a choice that should be respected in Australia and this is the position that is taken by all Australian governments.
Mr Patel said that the council’s position is that the police can do their job by asking a female officer to make a positive identification or for the person in question to accompany the police to a police station where a female may be present and privacy provided. Mr Patel noted that if such respect, dignity and sensitivity are shown, there should be no real issues with the implementation of this proposed legislation where Muslims are concerned.
This is the approach taken by this legislation, and I note the government has been very careful to ensure these religious and cultural sensitivities are respected. My office discussed this issue with the government and was informed that ACT Policing has a good ratio of female officers both in general duties policing and in traffic operations. In other circumstances a person wearing a face covering may wait for a female officer to arrive or ask to be taken to a police station.
At this point I will explain the purpose of my amendment, which I will move later. I note that section 58B(3) allows a person who wears a face covering for religious or
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video