Police Offences Amendment Bill 2025 (No 50)

Thursday 13 August 2026

[12.22 p.m.]

Ms ARMITAGE (Launceston) - Thank you, Mr President. I thank the honourable Leader for bringing forward this bill and for the briefings provided. This bill contains a number of commonsense measures to address and deter certain offences, and I know that it's the result of extensive consultation and research. Tasmanian roads are not as safe as they should be and I think many in this Chamber were part of a road safety committee that we had quite a few years ago, and we discovered that there are many issues that are very difficult to address with regard to road safety. In fact, our state has some of the worst crash, casualty and fatality statistics in the entire country, particularly on a per‑capita basis. The community is therefore right to expect us to do everything we can to deter risky and dangerous road behaviour and to penalise it commensurately when it does occur. To this end, this bill introduces a new road rage offence. I'm a bit surprised this sort of offence doesn't already exist. I believe the vast majority of people have been subjected to harassment, anger or fear on the roads. I think these are often characterised by an overreaction on a person's part where maybe a simple mistake has happened and someone's reaction is to swear, yell, gesture, or drive dangerously in response.

Ms Rattray - It happened to me last week.

Mr Hiscutt - Probably deserved, though.

Ms ARMITAGE - I was going to ask which one you were, Leader.

Mr Hiscutt - I was there.

Ms Rattray - Mr President, through you, the honourable member for Montgomery was in the back seat and I cut somebody off.

Mr Hiscutt - If I was in the back left I would have been hit.

Ms ARMITAGE - I wasn't sure whether the Leader was the one that caused the road rage or the one that had the road rage.

Ms Rattray - I caused it.

Ms ARMITAGE - With actions like tailgating or excessive beeping being common -

Ms Rattray - It was unintentional.

Ms ARMITAGE - as the honourable Leader said, in a poll undertaken by The Mercury newspaper, 86 per cent of respondents said that they had experienced road rage. I'm not quite sure what that says about those who commit road rage, however. If that many people have experienced road rage, that must mean there are also a lot of people on our roads committing it. This makes proportionate response all the more necessary and adds to my surprise that a road rage offence doesn't already exist, being aware that we already have offences relating to reckless and negligent driving that have been used to address road rage incidents to date. That being the case, it's never too late to introduce a specific offence that addresses a specific problem. I note that a person can be guilty of the new offence if they know, or ought to know, that their conduct is likely to cause alarm, stress, apprehension or fear in another person. It sounds like the member for Montgomery certainly had fear in the back of the car with the Leader.

Mr Hiscutt - Immense.

Ms ARMITAGE - I am wondering how this will operate in practice. What might cause alarm, distress, apprehension or fear in one person might not particularly bother another person. I'm just wondering how objective or subjective this standard is and how it's going to be applied. I would additionally be interested to hear more about what sort of defences might be available to a person who's charged with this offence and what sort of mitigating factors might apply. Perhaps the honourable Leader can provide some context from other jurisdictions. I know this is a new offence for Tasmania and we don't know exactly how it will unfold, but some further guidance and information would be really helpful and it would be good to have it on the public record.

Moving on, this bill further increases the penalty for trespass offences where the person is in possession of a firearm from 100 penalty units and two years' imprisonment to 150 penalty units and three years' imprisonment. I understand that this provision has come about largely from consultation with farmers and landowners around the state who are concerned about poachers and others who are armed and come onto their property. It increases safety for everyone, for farmers and landowners to know that there are increased penalties for these sorts of trespass offences, and hopefully will encourage hunters and others to ensure they plan their sorties appropriately and properly with permissions in place.

Crimes against people that are particularly violent or frightening or violating, especially those that involve weapons, have a particularly significant impact on victims and their loved ones. The trauma which results from being subjected to these sorts of offences is very real and very damaging, and people have the right to live without fear of being hurt, threatened or violated. To this end, the applicable penalty of assault with indecent intent has also been doubled from 50 to 100 penalty units and the a period of imprisonment increased from two to three years. Additionally, the bill increases the penalty for destroying or injuring property offences from 10 to 50 penalty units and from 12 months' to two years' imprisonment.

While the bill contains even further measures, I want to remark on these penalties. I am hopeful they will go some way to deterring these offences taking place to begin with, particularly in circumstances of family and domestic violence, or not limited to these circumstances. Community expectations certainly reflect the need to urgently and properly address crimes against people and their property, and that a strong, proactive response is demanded. Additionally, people are right to believe they will be protected from these sorts of crimes and, when they do occur, that those who commit them will be appropriately penalised and rehabilitated. Of course, ideally these crimes will be deterred in the first place and if increased penalties help to achieve that, then I think it's only reasonable to support them.

With regard to hooning, this bill looks at excessive noise and smoke emitted from a vehicle, unauthorised racing and hooning in general. How many of us of a night hear hooning? You don't know where it is; but I know from where I live, I often hear screeching of tyres and I know that it's somewhere nearby. Of course there's no ability for the police to actually get to wherever it might be before the vehicle has sped off and gone ‑ certainly something that causes a lot of angst in the community.

Ms Forrest - Certainly something close to the former member for Windermere's heart, if you remember. I think he was opposed to it, as opposed to a perpetrator of it.

Ms ARMITAGE - Oh, you mean the previous member for Windermere we're talking about?

Ms Forrest - Former member for Windermere.

Ms ARMITAGE - Right. I was thinking about the current one and forgetting our previous was a police officer, of course.

Ms Forrest - He had a very strong passion for hooning ‑ for holding hooners to account.

Ms ARMITAGE - Yes. Specifically, this bill makes it easier for vehicles to be forfeited to the Crown by increasing clamping and confiscation periods and reducing the thresholds for the automatic forfeiture of vehicles in certain conditions. Moreover, the bill removes the need for a police officer to personally observe a prescribed hooning offence occurring before any action can be taken and allows an officer to be able to form a reasonable belief as to the occurrence of an offence based on evidence taken from CCTV, dash cam or direct witnesses. I'm assuming that would also cover mobile phones, Leader, because many people may actually have a mobile phone? It's not mentioned here, but if the Leader could confirm that evidence from mobile phones - because there may be people there filming it, which sometimes they put up on Facebook and it can be determined from that. If we could just have that.

I'll close with some remarks on evidentiary provisions in the bill. I support all the measures contained in the bill, but I'm particularly in support of the measure for offences in relation to property. The bill proposes additional averment provisions which will reduce the need for a property owner to be called as a witness where their property has been injured or destroyed or a motor vehicle stolen. I would just like to make some comment about motor vehicle stealing, because I do notice the increase of fines and penalties for motor vehicle stealing.

I know the Chamber is aware that I'm often called to the police station to attend when offenders, particularly under‑age offenders have stolen a motor vehicle, many of them with no concern for the owner, no concern at all that they've burnt the vehicle out and certainly no means of paying a fine. The question I have: given the fact that the majority of people I've come across who have stolen vehicles, and I believe on many occasions this happens with older people as well, have little or no financial means, so I really wonder what happens when it's impossible for these offenders to pay the fine. It's all very well increasing the fines, but if they can't pay the fine, they have no ability whatsoever, and I'd say on all the occasions that I've attended when someone stole a vehicle and burnt it, they have not cared at all about the fact that it belonged to someone, regardless. Many times, they've stolen the vehicle and it's been crashed, they've denied it until they've been seen on CCTV, and they've burnt the vehicle. I could tell many stories, but it's not the time for it.

Currently, victims of crime, including agencies such as housing providers and business owners, are regularly called to give evidence in court proceedings to confirm that they were the property or the vehicle owner and that the charged person did not have permission to destroy, injure or steal that property. The bill will, therefore, create an averment, negating the need for a property owner to be called as a witness where their property has been injured, destroyed or a motor vehicle stolen. Actually, I might just add one little story here because it might be useful to people with older vehicles if they are reading: my husband had his vehicle broken into two weeks ago and they tried to steal it, but being an older vehicle, something that he loves and that he's had for 20 years, he had a steering wheel lock; and just let me tell you, it is very, very hard for someone stealing a vehicle to get a steering wheel lock -

Ms Forrest - They should have looked through the window before they tried.

Ms ARMITAGE - Well, they like to get things out of the vehicle as well and see that you might have something in the glove box, so they like to break into it as well. They did try very hard to get the steering wheel lock off; they couldn't. For anyone listening who has an older vehicle, I'm not sure how much they are, $50‑$60, it certainly saves your vehicle from being stolen. I would recommend it for people with older vehicles.

Anyway, this is a commonsense provision, and I think it will help the courts to efficiently handle matters relating to these sorts of offences without the need to undertake evidentiary formalities and waste people's time.

As I mentioned, I thank the honourable Leader for bringing the bill forward. It contains a number of sensible, proactive measures which will, hopefully, strengthen our response to these sorts of offences and proportionately penalise those who commit them. I'm also pleased to see, Leader, that this act commences on royal assent. With that, and if you could answer a couple of the questions in summing up, I support the bill.