House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Facial Identification Bill FACIAL IDENTIFICATION BILL Introduction and First Reading Introduction and First Reading The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly Fisher The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:58): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to provide for facial identification in certain circumstances. Read a first time. Second Reading Second Reading The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly Fisher The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:58): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This is a very simple measure and I thank parliamentary counsel for their expertise and prompt drafting on this matter. This bill does not mention the burqa which some people seem to be obsessed with. This bill allows the owner or occupier of prescribed listed premises (which I will indicate in a minute) to display a sign indicating that a person must not enter the premises with his or her face obscured and the obscuring of the face could result in the person being refused entry, being refused service or being removed from the premises using reasonable force. The definition of 'obscured face' is 'if it is covered to such an extent that insufficient facial features are visible to enable the person to be identified'. As to the premises which are prescribed or designated, the first one is an authorised deposit institution (ADI), which is a bank or similar. The second one is a state or federal government agency, and the third one is any other business or activity where, for reasons of security or for the purposes of compliance with any act or law, it is necessary or desirable to establish the identity of persons in the premises so used. Mr Pengilly House of Assembly Mr Pengilly: What about hoodies? The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly The Hon. R.B. SUCH: The member for Finniss asks about hoodies, and this covers anyone. Last week, I saw a photograph of someone in and around the courts in Melbourne. A guy was wearing a hoodie and you could not tell. Mr Pengilly interjecting: The Hon. R.B. SUCH House of Assembly The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I think it was a bloke, but it was hard to tell. This applies to anyone obscuring their face and includes a helmet or any other facial covering. I do not know whether members read TheIndependent Weekly, where there was a letter from one of our most esteemed former professors, Peter Schwerdtfeger. In his letter last weekend, he indicated that, when he was professor of meteorology at Flinders University, he had students doing exams and he did not know who they were. That is bizarre, and the reason the university does not do anything about it is that for political correctness it does not want to upset potential student numbers and therefore its finances. I was contacted by people who have close links with the Registrar of Motor Vehicles area, and they told me that people were coming in, getting a licence issued or renewed or a photograph or whatever, without necessarily uncovering their face. As a result of, I guess, of this issue being raised, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles issued a directive on, I think, Tuesday of last week that any person seeking a licence, ID or photograph has to uncover their face. I would have thought that was happening anyway. If it was not, why did the Registrar of Motor Vehicles have to issue a directive? I have spoken to people in banks and I have spoken to tellers and people who belong to the finance union, who have expressed great concern. It does not matter what the facial covering is; they are terrified if someone steps into that bank with their face covered. They do not know who it is. I know that the minister has said that they could ask them to uncover their face at the counter or when they want to do a transaction, but you have the person in the premises with their face covered prior to that. You have people, as I said, doing exams and you do not know who they are. You will have a situation that is sure to arise in regard to people appearing in a court setting. One of the reasons for getting in early on this, before the problem amplifies, is to set clear ground rules, and I cannot imagine a magistrate or judge being happy dealing with a defendant or a witness who cannot be identified. The feedback I have had from sections of the Muslim community is that they do not have a problem with what I am seeking to do. Banks, if they want to be considerate—and they should be—of a woman who is not comfortable showing her face to a male—and there are a lot of people who come from a particular background in that category—then a bank could and, in my view, should make provision for that. I noticed that in France the parliament has voted to ban the burqa. I do not support that. I do not believe that what clothing people wear down the street, at the park or at the beach should be controlled. I do not care if people get around naked. It does not worry me; it is not going to upset me. I do not care what they wear. People do not like what I wear. I know some people think I am an overgrown Wiggle, but that is not the issue. If we do not deal with this facial aspect sensibly and in a reasonable way, what we will have is a move in the community for a more drastic approach, which has been advocated by Senator Bernardi and Fred Nile, member of parliament in New South Wales. I do not support that restriction. I think that is unnecessary, because it is not related to the key points I am making, which are based on security considerations and identity where those issues are critical. If you are walking down the street and you have your face covered, I do not see that as a problem in itself. It does not matter what the covering is on your face; some people have tattoos, some people have other things. Contrary to the writer in The Independent Weekly a fortnight ago, my measure does not relate to what is covering a person's hair. We know that the Sikhs—a great cultural and religious group for whom I have a lot of respect—wear a turban. Exclusive Brethren wear a head covering. I do not have a problem with that whatsoever. This is purely about the recognition of facial features, and I think it is a reasonable measure. I noticed that the Spanish parliament had a vote on the burqa and, although the ban on the burqa was opposed by the Socialist party, what they are looking at is a measure very similar to what I am proposing here, which I think is a reasonable, sensible measure. I do not care whether it is a hoodie, whether it is a balaclava, whether it is a bike helmet or part of a burqa; it does not make any difference to me. The key issue is: can you identify that person, and do they meet the security requirements where that is an issue? I think if we can adopt a sensible, pragmatic approach, then we will avoid going down what I think is the extreme path of those who want to ban the burqa. In introducing this, I am well aware that our community has some people who I would regard as bigots and xenophobes. I am not in that category. I do not care what racial, religious or cultural background someone comes from, but I am concerned about the potential over time for problems to emerge if we do not have sensible ground rules implemented soon for the visual aspect of the face to be identified. I am sure that no-one would argue that Professor Peter Schwerdtfeger is a racist or a xenophobe. I am not and neither is he. What we are concerned about is having sensible measures in place to deal with a situation which the Muslim community, I believe, can see the sense in, because it does not interfere with people wearing, for example, a burka to a mosque or anywhere else in the public arena I think the final point is that not all people of the Muslim faith wear a burqa. It is not ordained in the Koran, from what I can see, that women must cover their face. They must be modest in their dress but there are a lot of people in the Christian faith who would argue the same, in regard to women in particular. I do not know why we pick on women, why women have to be modest in their dress. I think the same rules should apply to men. I conclude by asking members to support the bill. It is a reasonable proposition. I think it is common sense and if the public opinion is any guide, then I think about 98 per cent of the population support what I am trying to do. I commend the bill to the house. Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.