- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Council
- 19 October 2005
State Emergency and Rescue Management Amendment Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 43 of 57
| Next Item »
Page: 18851
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 18 October 2005.
The Hon. RICK COLLESS [5.50 p.m.]: The Coalition will not oppose the State Emergency and Rescue Management Amendment Bill. We see some quite sensible provisions in the bill, particularly in relation to the sale and misuse of emergency uniforms and insignias. We think it is most appropriate to create an offence of manufacturing and selling insignias of emergency service organisations and an offence of using or displaying insignias of emergency service organisations, particularly when it is with the intent to deceive. In this day and age of counter-terrorism activities it is important that the only people who wear emergency service organisation uniforms and insignias are those authorised to wear them.
The bill allows for the appointment of deputy emergency operation controllers. That is required for the normal day-to-day management of emergency service organisations. To wear a uniform is a right that is earned. It is not something that is taken lightly by emergency service personnel. People have to apply for that right. They have to be accepted in order to wear that uniform and they have to work and study hard to earn the right to wear the uniform. It is important that that right be preserved and held in some esteem.
When these people earn their stripes, as they say, when they graduate and are eligible to wear uniforms, they invariably wear the uniforms and insignias with pride. We have all seen the tremendous jobs the State Emergency Service people, the Rural Fire Service people, the police and others do when they don their uniforms in times of need and put their safety and lives at risk for the benefit of the wider community. It is important that those people are respected once they have earned the right to wear those uniforms.
The bill has been touted—the Parliamentary Secretary made a point of this in his speech in another place—as being legislation introduced to combat terrorism. I think that is drawing a long bow. The bill is unlikely to deter terrorists as such, but it may remove the risk that they may attempt to impersonate a uniformed officer. The Coalition does not have any concerns with the bill and will not be opposing it. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr IAN COHEN [5.55 p.m.]: On behalf of the Greens I speak to the State Emergency and Rescue Management Amendment Bill. I acknowledge from the debate in the other place and also from comments that have been made here that the bill takes a reasonable position to ensure that uniforms are worn only by those who have received the appropriate training and are qualified to wear them. I have had a second take on this legislation, as it is wrapped up in the rhetoric of terrorism and the perceived threats that seem to be running the agendas of the major political operatives in this State and worldwide. Official uniforms are important in our community. Any abuse of them is an affront to the trust people place in those wearing a uniform, whether they be police, ambulance officers, Rural Fire Service or other government service personnel. It is inappropriate for people to impersonate them for the purpose of access for simple robbery or to intimidate people in any way.
Last year the official uniforms and insignia of New South Wales Ambulance Service officers were offered for sale on the Internet site eBay. That raises concerns for everyone in the community. If such items are accessible through eBay or by any other means, it could allow people with malicious intent to impersonate a range of emergency service personnel, and that is not appropriate. I understand the offence attracts a penalty of 50 penalty points—that is, a $5,500 fine. It is important that people who impersonate State Emergency Service personnel or police or ambulance authorities are appropriately dealt with.
These days an unofficial market in uniforms and insignia would not be seen as appropriate. In the circumstances I do not think it is an unreasonable move. From time to time we hear of people impersonating authorities with malicious intent, and that should be resisted. However, I hope that the effect of these legislative provisions does not transfer to people who may be wearing old uniforms or such like as part of a fashion statement. At times young people do wear army uniforms or policemen's hats and similar items of clothing, but they do it obviously in a spirit of rebellion and with no malicious intent. I would like to think that that harmless behaviour would be seen differently. But legislation like this bill can be abused by those in authority against people who might be acting in a relatively benign—cheeky, if you like—manner. As the intent of the bill is to protect the community against those who may seek to dress in an inappropriate and deceitful matter, the Greens do not object to the legislation.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.00 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party is pleased to support the State Emergency and Rescue Management Amendment Bill, which will amend the principal Act to create two new offences: the unauthorised manufacture, sale or hire of the insignia or uniform of an emergency services organisation; and the use or display of an emergency services uniform or insignia with the intention to deceive, that is, to impersonate an officer of an emergency service organisation. Currently one of the largest anti-terrorist exercises in Australia's history is being conducted. It involves thousands of security and emergency officers, mainly in Victoria, and is a precaution against terrorist attacks during the Commonwealth Games. We must do everything possible to keep our community safe. There have been concerns that access to official uniforms of the New South Wales fire, ambulance and volunteer emergency services could enable terrorists to easily impersonate a range of emergency services personnel, which could assist them to plan or carry out terrorist activities.
Currently there is great respect for people wearing those uniforms, and a terrorist wearing such a uniform would be able to enter sensitive areas whereas a civilian would be immediately stopped. The bill may appear to be only a minor step but I believe it is very important. It is not much good having a great system that operates after a terrorist attack. The Government has a responsibility to ensure that it puts in place every possible measure to prevent a successful terrorist attack. That is why the Federal Government, Prime Minister John Howard and the Premiers of all States have agreed to the new draft Federal legislation, which will be uniform across Australia. Even though it may seem Draconian to some, it is essential in the climate in which we live. I note that the bill provides for a maximum fine of $5,500. This could be a deterrent to individuals who are not involved in terrorism but unknowingly facilitate terrorist acts. There is also provision for specific exemptions to apply where the person's conduct is authorised or they can establish that the conduct is for public entertainment or they have a reasonable excuse such as being a genuine collector. For those reasons the Christian Democratic Party supports the bill.
The Hon. Dr ARTHUR CHESTERFIELD-EVANS [6.03 p.m.]: The fact that the bill is justified as being a measure against the threat of terrorism is something of a worry. As I have said countless times in this House, the reason we have a terrorist threat is because our foreign policy is so bad and belligerent. Because of that appalling foreign policy we are told that we have to totally adjust our thinking, trash our civil rights, and rack up the penalties on almost any activity. We do not have a problem with stopping the improper use of emergency and rescue service uniforms and insignia: laws are already in place to prevent that. Of course, it is illegal to use a ruse to commit a robbery or other felony. It is part of the crime and, presumably, an exacerbating feature in sentencing considerations.
It is always claimed that these measures are all about terrorism. This Government has knuckled under to John Howard's insane antiterrorism Act. It is necessary because of his appalling foreign policy, and because he took Australia into a war without even bothering to consult Federal Parliament. When Peter Andren moved a motion to debate the issue in the House, both major parties did not even want to debate it. We are racking up the penalties for something that otherwise might seem relatively trivial on the basis of a threat of terrorism.
The bill covers the New South Wales Ambulance Service, New South Wales Fire Brigades, New South Wales Fire Service, State Emergency Service, Volunteer Rescue Association, Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol, Australian Volunteer Coast Guard, and the police. We do not particularly oppose the bill; we simply make the point that the bill is necessary because we have a crazy foreign policy. This Government is increasing penalties for actions that it claims might possibly be involved in terrorism or might stop some degree of terrorism because of the climate in which we live. Indeed, they are the exact words that Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile of the Christian Democratic Party used. We are in this climate of fear because some very silly people who kowtow to George Bush, who is advised by some very silly people, are actually trashing our civil rights and making our society less safe. They are also squandering billions of dollars on security measures that may or may not protect us, even as our civil rights go out backwards. That point needs to be made.
We will not oppose the bill, as we usually do not oppose such bills, but we are saying that the paradigm that makes it necessary is the absurdity of our foreign policy. We are harming humanity and our society and wasting money that we could put towards worthy causes. That is what the two parties that are supposedly running this sick duopoly that is Australia's political system are doing. The Australian Democrats believe that a more sensible look at the whole matter is necessary.
The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [6.08 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions and support, and I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:32:17 : Update this page