Sada-e-Watan Sydney ™
sadaewatan@gmail.com

Identification legislation amendment bill 2011

  Dear Mr Zafar,

I gave this speech on the Identification legislation Amendment Bill 2011 which makes it mandatory for people to show their face to police,court and other officials and are required by law to do so for identification purpose and your readers should know the significant financial and custodial penalties they attract if members of the community do not cooperate.

 I copied all of my speech for your attention & readers of Sada-e-Watan..

 Kind Regards,

Shaoquett

......................................................................................................................................

 The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE: Tuesday,20.09.2011 [4.38 p.m.]: I speak in debate on the Identification Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 and reiterate the position taken by the shadow Attorney General, Mr Paul Lynch, in the lower House not to oppose the bill. The Opposition does not oppose the bill as far as it relates to providing the police with the necessary powers to require a person to comply with face identification. As a lawyer, I am prepared to say there is some, though very limited, legal justification for this bill if for no reason other than the necessary identification needs of police and others in the court and Corrective Services systems. The background of this bill is a matter of concern. The thrust of the bill lies with Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile and its spirit emanates from the Summary Offences Amendment (Full-Face Covering Prohibition Bill) 2010. Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile tried to introduce similar bills in 2002 and 2006, which promoted widespread condemnation—and deservedly so. Even the Summary Offences Amendment (Full-face Coverings Prohibition) Bill 2010, voted on last year, attracted the support of no more than three votes. I do not support this bill but I will not vote against it because it may trespass on the personal rights and liberties of Australian citizens. The Parliament's Legislation Review Committee commented on the bill as follows:

 The Committee notes that powers conferred by provisions in this Bill that require an individual to remove a face covering may trespass on personal rights and liberties.

 I also question the haste behind the bill. I see it as a knee-jerk reaction to one highly publicised incident because it involved the police and a woman wearing a burqa. Therefore I have significant concerns and questions about infringements on the civil, religious and political rights of citizens. I am suspicious of the politics behind it which, if the Government were genuine, it would lay out for all to see. So as a matter of need to give police officers and other authorised officials the power to ascertain an individual's identity, I will not object to the bill.

 The object of the bill is to amend certain legislation to enable police officers and other authorised officials to require the removal of face coverings for identification purposes and to provide for identification procedures relating to individuals subject to a move-on direction, or for individuals in relation to the making or receiving of statutory declarations and affidavits. The bill proposes to achieve these aims through amendments to the following Acts. Previous speakers have detailed the amendments. The bill amends the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to allow a police officer to require a person to remove a face covering for identification purposes and enable a police officer to request that a person disclose his or her identity if the individual is to be subject to a move-on direction.

 The bill amends the Court Security Act 2005 to allow a court security officer to require a person to remove a face covering for identification purposes if the person is seeking to enter court premises. It amends the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 and the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008 to allow authorised officers to require a visitor to a correctional facility to remove a face covering for identification purposes. The bill amends the Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 and the Children (Detention Centres) Regulation 2010 to allow an authorised officer to require a visitor to a detention centre to remove a face covering for identification purposes. Finally, the bill amends the Oaths Act 1900 to provide for identification procedures to be followed by persons taking or receiving statutory declarations or affidavits.

 The background to this bill is as follows. In November 2010 Carnita Matthews was convicted of falsely accusing a police officer of forcibly removing her face covering after she was pulled over for allegedly driving without having her P-plates displayed. In June 2010 her conviction was quashed on appeal after the appellate court judge found that there was no evidence to confirm that the woman, Ms Matthews, who was convicted of the offence, was the same person who made false allegations against the police officer because the person who made the allegations was wearing a face covering at the time.

 Mr David Shoebridge: It was a bad identification.

The Hon. SHAOQUETT MOSELMANE: I acknowledge Mr David Shoebridge's interjection. As such, the woman could not be positively identified. The principle element in this bill is the proposed insertion of section 19A of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act, which provides the police with power to require a person to remove a face covering worn by the person to allow that officer or another officer to see the person's face. This applies where the person has been lawfully required to provide photographic identification, to identify himself or herself, or to provide other identification particulars. Section 19A (6) defines "lawfully required".

 So at face value, this bill does not intend to be a carte blanche provision, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, allowing police to demand the removal of face coverings in wide-ranging situations. The Government appears to be at pains to make this point. On the other hand, the precise circumstances in which the demand can be made to remove facial coverings are not spelt out in the bill. According to the shadow Attorney General, there are 40 or so offences that could trigger the additional powers under section 19A. I will not itemise the offences; suffice it to say that the shadow Attorney General has been diligent and itemised each of the 40 offences. I refer anyone interested to read the member's speech on this matter.

 An important part of the bill is the penalties for non-compliance. Some of these penalties are significant financially and attract significant custodial sentences. The penalty for failing to comply with a direction to remove a facial covering connected with section 14 of the Act, which relates to officers requesting the disclosure of driver or passenger identity, is $5,500 or 12 months in jail. In other cases it is $220 or two penalty units. When it comes to detention centres the legislation does not impose a penalty if an individual refuses to remove the face covering. However, juvenile justice officers or an official at the detention centre may refuse entry until the individual complies. So a person who does not comply with a requirement under this clause may be refused a visit to the detention centre. The legislation will not criminalise a refusal to remove a facial covering.

 Amendments to the Court Security Act provide that a court security officer may require a person who is wearing a face covering to remove it if the person is seeking to enter court premises. I acknowledge the points raised by Mr David Shoebridge. If a person is required to remove a face covering and fails to do so or to leave the premises, the security officer can repeat the requirement; if the person does not comply or leave he or she is guilty of an offence, with a maximum fine of five penalty units. If it is a situation covered by section 13A (1) (6) there is no option to leave, but the warning must be repeated for an offence to have occurred. The bill also amends the Oaths Act. These amendments deal with situations when a person makes a statutory declaration of affidavit before what is termed an authorised witness.

 The witness must see the face of the person making the instrument or must know the person or confirm his or her identity and certify it on the document. It is a criminal offence not to do so, with a maximum penalty of $220. The witness may request a person to remove a face covering, and failure to do so will mean that the document cannot be witnessed. The Attorney General, Mr Greg Smith, said that this bill is about ensuring that police, juvenile justice officers, officers authorised by Corrective Services and court security officers have the power to require that a person remove a face covering to enable the person's face to be seen for the purpose of identification. The new powers are designed so that these officers are able to function effectively—I highlight this point—to ensure the security and safety of our community and its citizens. I will come back to this point.

 I cannot understand how an issue about headwear is a threat to community safety. The bill fails to explain or define the burqa, niqab and hijab, and it shows a failure of those behind the bill who claim to have understood the issues surrounding this Islamic wear. Herein lies the more complex issues for police and other authorised officers, prosecutors and court officials as a whole. What is a burqa? What is a hijab? What is a niqab? What is a chadri? What is a scarf? What is a purdah? A scanning of the web shows a burqa and chadri in different forms. Indeed, it shows many different Islamic dresses. Whether in Afghanistan, Iran or the Middle East, Islamic woman have different forms of dresses.

This bill makes reference to a piece of cloth that covers the top of the forehead to the bottom the chin, but some women's clothing covers the lower part of the forehead to the top of the chin. Would police officers have the power to ask women to remove their face coverings when their faces are already visible? As the Hon. Adam Searle said earlier, in some instances a niqab head covering is connected to a woman's dress. Does that mean that police officers or court officers would have the power to ask a woman to remove her entire piece of clothing? In such circumstances police officers would not be complying with the law in that they would have to ask a woman to remove her dress as opposed to only a face covering.

These measures will result in police officers and other court officials experiencing significant difficulties. In this really dangerous field the definition of "face covering" could be varied and present significant difficulties for police officers and other officials. The most common view of the limited number of people who are aware of this bill is that it is not opposed. However, the follow-up question is: What is next? There is a sense of apprehension in the community that this may be the thin edge of the wedge. When dealing with a sensitive issue such as religious dress everybody should tread warily as it could impact on the rights and civil liberties of members of our society. We should support not only multiculturalism, free speech and religious rights; we should also practice those things.

  Email Sada-e-Watan to a friend!