Dr WOODRUFF (Franklin) - Madam Speaker, the Greens support the Police Legislation Miscellaneous Amendment Bill 2019 and the amendments to the acts it contains within it, specifically the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2005, the Police Offences Act 1935, the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970 and the Police Powers (Vehicle Interception) Act 2000.
The amendments within this bill are simple rectifications of omissions, either unintended or the consequences of movement between bills, and they all seem sensible. It appears that the Community Protection (Offender Reporting) Act, which enables and establishes the state sex offender register, recognises reportable offenders from other Australian jurisdictions and New Zealand. There is a problem at the moment in which similar orders that have been made in other jurisdictions are not being provided for. This could have been my misreading of it but it would be helpful if the minister could enlighten me. In the fact sheet it says in regard to this matter -
To address this bill, the bill inserts a definition of community protection order into the act, which recognises Tasmanian orders, interim orders and similar orders made in other jurisdictions. This allows breaches of corresponding orders from other jurisdictions in Tasmania to be treated as if they were a breach of a Tasmanian order.
Is it possible that should have said, 'This allows breaches of corresponding orders from other jurisdictions in Australia to be treated as if they were a breach of a Tasmanian order.'? I wondered whether there was a word mistake in the fact sheet. When I read the second reading speech and in looking at the bill, it seems to me the intention is and what this amendment does is enable recognition of breaches of orders from other Australian jurisdictions and New Zealand. It is a small matter but it is in the fact sheet. I wondered whether I had misunderstood that or whether it needs to be rectified for the record. That seems important, that when there are breaches of an order - including conditions that require a reportable offender not to associate with certain persons, not to be in certain places, not to undertake certain employment, and not to engage in particular movement or consumption of alcohol and drugs - these are things that are being prescribed by court order, and if there are breaches here or in other jurisdictions, that should be fixed.
The second amendment in relation to an unintended consequence of the section 32 of the Traffic Act. When section 32 of the Traffic Act, the part relating to the offence of dangerous driving, was moved to the Criminal Code, the unintended consequences of that move was that dangerous driving offences are no longer covered by the confiscation of the vehicle or by clamping provisions. We are comfortable with the amendment that will include the crimes of dangerous driving, causing death by dangerous driving and dangerous driving causing bodily harm as being potentially subject to the confiscation of a vehicle or to the clamping of a vehicle. The other amendment to the Road Rules Act is minor and uncontroversial.
Amendments to the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act address the inadvertent omissions requiring people involved with the taking, handling and delivery of a blood sample to give evidence, which could be given by an evidentiary certificate. There has been no similar provision to cover the taking and delivery of oral fluid samples and this bill rectifies that omission.
Finally, in relation to the Police Powers (Vehicle Interception) Act, Part 5 of that bill is to amend that act so that, in the circumstance of drug driving, it is referring to the presence of an illicit drug in the drivers breath or blood and not to the presence in their oral fluid. The fact that it currently does not refer to the presence in their oral fluid is being rectified and we are satisfied that is reasonable and sensible change to make. I do not have any other comments and we are happy to support those amendments.