Ivan Dean, Speeches Index

Tuesday 2 October 2007

POLICE OFFENCES AMENDMENT BILL 2007

Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - Mr President, when you look at these amendments I suppose you could identify them as being a mixed bag of amendments.

Ms Thorp - Yes, a grab bag probably.

Mr DEAN - It is a grab bag or something like that - I was trying to think of the right word for it - because it goes across a number of areas and a number of acts. Having looked at all of the amendments, I strongly support all of them. There is not one amendment there that I could really challenge because I think that the public out there very clearly are seeking for better and improved legislation that can assist the police to do their job better and in a way that the public want it to be done.

I just want to touch on a few of them as I go through, although not at great length with any of them. In relation to the covert photography one, modern-day technology is wonderful and if you start by looking at mobile phones in particular - if we just take them without looking at all the other technology - they can do many things, including still photography of course, they take movies, and there are so many other things that they can do. They become diaries and really computers and that is what we are using them for, and we can pick up messages all around the world on them. They are just an incredible piece of technology. But we also know that they are being used indiscriminately for the purposes of filming people in some fairly ordinary situations, and there are many cases now that have been publicised of where they have been used to photograph people in toilets, in change rooms - you mention it and they have been used. They have even been set up in bedrooms, motel rooms and hotel rooms to be used in situations where it ought not to be occurring.

The fact is that you are entitled to privacy and you should be able to undertake private activity in certain circumstances and in certain places without the fear of being filmed or photographed, and that is what this legislation is about trying to improve. As I understand it, the legislation would make it an offence to photograph a person probably sunbaking, swimming or lazing about at a private pool or simply in their front yard. As I understand it, it would cover that, and we know that that sort of thing is happening, where people are photographing people in private residences who are undertaking leisure and other activity.

It will also make it an offence, I think, to photograph a person - or does it? - at a public pool site without the other person's consent. Could a reasonable person expect to be afforded privacy at a public pool site or at a beach? I am not quite sure whether it fits that angle or not. I suppose it depends for what reason the photographs or the film would be taken and as to how it would or could be used after it is taken as to whether or not it would constitute an offence. It is really a fairly difficult area, I would think, and I looked at it fairly closely to see what I could make of it. Perhaps we can get an explanation of that a little later on when the member carrying the bill responds.

I think it is very clear that this legislation is really targeted at those unscrupulous types, the ones preying on unsuspecting, innocent people, children in many cases, and in a sexual way - filming under dresses, skirts, shower cubicles, toilet doors, and in change rooms, et cetera. These offenders are sick and depraved and in many cases will advance from this type of behaviour, Mr President, to more serious criminal offences, and that is what you see happening. They are starting off in what might be seen as an inoffensive way and then progressing to much more serious crime and criminal activity.

If you look at the number of offenders who are caught for committing this type of offence - and I do not know what the percentage would be and what the police would say it was; we would like to think it is 100 per cent but we know very clearly that it is not - I would suggest that the number of people apprehended for this type of offence in the past has been very minuscule. This legislation may well provide a greater and better opportunity for arrests and offences to be detected, and that is what this is all about at the end of the day. As I said, there would not be one person out there who would not want this legislation to be in place and enacted and the police to be able to work with it.

On reading the bill, though, I just wonder what protection would be offered a person who innocently photographed the genital or anal area of another person? We know that that can be done, and it is an offence with underwear as well, without consent, for instance, in sport.

Ms Thorp - I'm just trying to envisage a situation where you innocently photograph someone's genitals.

Mr DEAN - Well, I have seen instances where photographs have been taken innocently of people in sporting poses where certain parts of their genitalia have been exposed. I am just wondering when that would become an offence, and I suspect it would become an offence if the person then went on at some later stage to use it for, I guess, some sexual purposes or openly distributed it to other people.

Mrs Smith - It's not an offence if it's the photographer from the Advocate putting it in the paper.

Mr DEAN - I just do not know, and that was raised with me by another person that is involved in the activity of photographing sporting events and sporting activities.

Ms Thorp - Bits slip out, so to speak.

Mr DEAN - Bits slip out, so to speak, Mr President. It opens up a number of areas where we do need good, strong legislation because of the advancements in technology. It is just improving every day, and we do not know where it is going to end. It is so easy now for people to take advantage of others, so I will support that.

I want to touch on the distress signals. Activating distress signals for anything other than emergencies is reprehensible and it is about time there was specific legislation available to sort these irresponsible people out. They are often set off as a result of partying or simply skylarking about, and we know very well, and I guess I could go back to my previous profession where it puts police on alert, it puts emergency services on alert and there has to be a lot of investigative work done when a flare is ignited and let off in whatever circumstances, Mr President. It takes up a lot of time, and there have been sea searches, there have been land searches and there have been air searches conducted as a result of distress signals being activated stupidly and without good reason. So it is good to see that legislation here, and hopefully it will be supported by members.

It is all very well to have this legislation in place, but we have to advertise it; we have to publicise the fact that the legislation is there and what it is there for. We need to get the message out very clearly to people.

I should like to have seen included in the penalty section the right to recover any costs associated with the search emanating from the activation of a false distress signal. Perhaps this is the wrong time to start mentioning cost recovery because of what has been happening in the last week or so. I believe that if people go out there and act stupidly, then they ought to suffer the cost of any investigation that is set up in relation to their act.

Yes, we have the one in relation to the forestry issue now, and I support the police in that regard. If somebody deliberately goes out to protest in a way that they know very clearly is wrong and they do not have the protection of the law, then they ought to be subject to any costs that are incurred as a result of that. If it is a democratic process and they are doing it in accordance with the controls and rules, I do not have a problem with that. In fact police support people in those circumstances with their protesting.

Mr Wilkinson - What about your drug inquiries? Often people involved with drug surveillance set up surveillance cameras, they set up sound equipment, and so on, to see whether these people are or are not dealing in drugs. The costs to the police must be exorbitant in relation to those. Are you saying that those costs should be recovered as well?

Mr DEAN - No. With the greatest respect to the member for Nelson, that is a totally different situation altogether. That is the police in an investigation of crime and criminal activity, and of course police have to undertake all of those activities, surveillance and everything else that is a part of it. It is a part of the investigatory process.

Mr Wilkinson - Unlawful protests are the same, are they not? It's an activity which is unlawful.

Mr DEAN - No, it is not. This is where people can lawfully protest, and they are supported. Police support that, and everybody else does.

Mr Wilkinson - We're talking about unlawful protests.

Mr DEAN - It is when they go beyond that and they know very well that they are acting beyond the proper restrictions and controls of lawful protesting -

Mr Wilkinson - So do the criminals, though. They know they're going outside the law.

Mr DEAN - No, no, they do not.

Mr Wilkinson - Of course they do, they know they're going outside the law.

Mr DEAN - When they blatantly and deliberately, knowingly do that then it is a whole different situation.

Ms Forrest - A drug dealer does, a drug dealer blatantly knows that they are breaking the law.

Mr DEAN - They do.

Ms Thorp - Can I suggest that we do this over a cup of tea at four o'clock?

Members laughing.

Mr DEAN - I know very well that I should not have raised it and I keep going. The fortification legislation I see as being good legislation. I am surprised that it has taken so long to come into this arena in the way that it has done. It has long been a problem for police of people barricading themselves into premises, making it very difficult for police to gain entry and then trying to conceal their unlawful activity. I was involved in such a situation at Latrobe. The premises are still there and the premises are still occupied by a similar group of people.

On one occasion it took us about 40 minutes or so to get into the premises crowbarring doors and using sledgehammers. When we finally got in everything had been burned except one or two items that they were not able to burn and we did make some arrests but for very minor and quite frivolous offences. It demonstrated then that there is a need for legislation in that line.

Mrs Smith - Do you reckon by the time we move the fence or whatever they are going to have burnt anything inside anyway?

Mr DEAN - Right. And these premises in that case, I might add, were also covered by video surveillance. It was well set up and I suspect it is still the same; video surveillance all around it and the premises were in a fairly remote area with no other buildings close by.

The other thing which I wanted to touch on was drink spiking. One act that really brought this to the front was the Farmer case where there was a lot of drink spiking involved. A number of indecent acts were committed on very innocent people following the spiking of their drinks.

Ms Ritchie - You can only describe those types of people as monsters.

Mr DEAN - Absolutely. Monsters, you are right; that is a good word for them. But it is good to see this legislation involved here as drink spiking is normally sexually motivated. It is done for that purpose and that is the sad thing about it. And it is so easily done. It is not easily detected but very easy to carry out and for young people in particular and for young people who are in the habit of going to nightclubs and hotels - and a lot do that for good, clean, innocent fun - to then find themselves involved in something like this would have to be absolutely horrific.

The sad thing is we know of many cases, and I know of a number of cases myself unfortunately, where the victims would not go to the police and would not make a complaint. That is also a situation that we need to deal with. These people are getting away with it and once they do it a few times they continue to do it until such a time as they get caught. If they get caught.

People are reluctant to report it because they see themselves as being guilty for having been there and for putting themselves in that position. They are not guilty. It is an abhorrent crime easily committed.

I want to touch on liquor consumption. Drinking on public streets was once acceptable and you have not got to go back that far in time when you could carry a stubby or a bottle of wine out in the street and have a drink. But of course that law changed and it would have changed about 12 or 14 years ago maybe and it is now an offence to carry alcohol out into the street and drink it.

Mr Wilkinson - You were carrying a flagon at that time weren't you, not a bottle?

Mr DEAN - Yes, when it changed I probably was carrying a flagon. It has now changed to casks. I think our streets have become safer with those changes to the drinking rules and regulations. However, we still see a lot of antisocial behaviour that is caused through alcohol and there are still a lot of assaults and a lot of other offences being committed out on the streets that are absolutely alcohol related.

Many families enjoy going to garden areas for a picnic and there are a number of areas mentioned here. There are our own grounds here, of course. The City Park at Launceston is probably the best example that I can give of where people do enjoy going there as a family and they do enjoy having a wine or a drink of other alcohol in some circumstances. But unfortunately there does need to be legislation in place to restrict and control that activity. The Launceston City Council has legislation in place, and I would have thought that there would have been similar in Hobart, under the council by-laws to restrict and control alcohol on property owned by the councils, for instance. In the City Park at Launceston you are not allowed to drink alcohol there, under the by-laws that are in place, except with the permission and a permit that would be required to be provided by the Launceston City Council, which they can provide in certain circumstances.

So I wonder why some of this legislation is there. But perhaps that is not the case across all councils. I do not know. The member might want to touch on that in the response as well.

I can see why the legislation is necessary; there a lots of examples of out-of-control behaviour on the lawns here and it has created havoc, so this legislation ought to be able to control that, Mr President.

I am very pleased to see the amendment in relation to vehicle confiscation for from 48 hours to seven days. I think it is necessary and justified in all circumstances. Currently it is a cat-and-mouse game played where the youth that are usually involved simply play the police off. They normally know, roughly, where the police -

Mr PRESIDENT - Pay or play?

Mr DEAN - Play, Mr President. I certainly didn't say pay, no. I do not know whether or not I am right but there seem to be more doughnut marks out there now, more black tyre marks on the roads now than there ever were before. It is still very prevalent, Mr President. As an example, last night at about 7 p.m., I was talking to a gentleman in Scott Street, Launceston. We could hear in the background a number of vehicles revving loudly, tyres screaming and spinning. This chap with me said, 'It is still going on'. I said, 'It is'.

So it is happening, and on a very regular basis. If this legislation is supported and I think it will be, there will be a lot of publicity, because seven days is certainly a much greater penalty than 48 hours. By the time these hoons go to bed that night and get out the next day, the 48 hours is up and they have their confiscated vehicle back. So it is not much a deterrent, Mr President, and the money that it costs them to get their vehicle back is peanuts.

Sitting suspended from 4 p.m. to 4.30 p.m.

Mr DEAN - I think prior to the suspension I was making some doughnuts or I was discussing doughnuts.

The confiscation of a vehicle for 48 hours was having little impact, in my opinion and in the opinion of a lot of other people. I am not aware of the numbers, although one day here we were given the number of repeat offenders in this category, and it was not all that high so perhaps it might have been having a bit more impact than I thought. I think the seven days is the way to go because it gets the message home very clearly to these people that it is not an accepted activity.

Mr Aird - It's not long enough.

Mr DEAN - You are right, it is not. I can now identify with the motion that was passed by the Local Government Association of Tasmania conference earlier this year, that when these vehicles are confiscated there ought to be a licence disqualification at the same time. I cannot remember the time but I think it was brought up by the Mayor of the Derwent Valley Council, Mr Cracknell, that it ought to be a three-month licence suspension at the same time as the confiscation of the vehicle. That would bring home to them very strongly that the offence would not be tolerated. I do not know whether the Government has looked at that. I suspect they have and at this stage they do not see any reason to invoke that type of legislation or penalty.

Ms Thorp - We will see how these changes pan out.

Mrs Smith - I don't think they support mandatory sentencing. Is that right?

Ms Thorp - I don't.

Mr DEAN - It is interesting, some of the things that occur. Another event I witnessed the other night was a hoon in a gravel section of a car park. He spun around in the car park for what I thought was minutes but it probably was not that long. The dust and the noise were horrific. By the time you get to a phone to report it, it is too late. You cannot get the action immediately - and I understand that; police cannot be everywhere. It is annoying and it is unacceptable behaviour. A lot of them cover their numberplates and you cannot do much about that either.

It is good to see the legislation being strengthened because I think it will have an impact, provided it is publicised and these hoons get to know that the legislation is in place.

I wanted to very briefly touch on false reports to police. I wondered why the legislation at this stage only identifies the reporting now to a State servant or to a person within the employment of Tasmania Police. Previously, if a person reported to one of those officers and it was a false report, no action could be taken, but this will alter that. It would have been good to have had an amendment to the legislation so that when a report is made, whether it be to a police officer, a State servant, a police employee or to another person - the reason I say this is that it is not uncommon or unusual for the partner of a police officer to take a report - when it is intended that a police officer carry out an investigation, there ought to be some way of proceeding with an action against those persons if it is proven to be a false report. I wonder whether or not that was considered in all the circumstances. Perhaps the member carrying the bill will be able to comment on that.

It is a mixed bag of amendments but they are quite good amendments which will strengthen the legislation in a number of areas where the public would very much like to see changes made to protect them and their children. The drink-spiking one in particular is very well prepared, in my view, and will be accepted by the public. I will be supporting the bill, Mr President.

Return To Main Page. Return To Speeches.