Mr GREG WARREN (Campbelltown) (15:40): I am delighted to make a brief contribution to debate on the Detention Legislation Amendment (Prohibition on Spit Hoods) Bill 2023. I acknowledge my colleague and Parliamentary Secretary to the Attorney General who is in the Chamber during my contribution. I also acknowledge the Attorney General and his staff for their efforts in bringing the bill before the House. The bill seeks to amend legislation governing places of detention and the exercise of police powers by introducing a statutory prohibition on use of spit hoods. Many people, whilst they have heard the term, might be wondering what a spit hood is. A spit hood is a hood that covers the face or mouth of the wearer and can usually be secured at the base around the wearer's neck. Spit hoods prevent persons from spitting on and biting other persons but can also cause trauma, injury or death to the wearer.
Spit hoods are not used in New South Wales. To protect against the risk of spitting, law enforcement and health officers use personal protective equipment—otherwise known as PPE—such as face shields or other risk‑mitigation strategies, if appropriate in the circumstances. However, there is nothing preventing spit hoods being authorised for use in the future. The bill will ensure that only Parliament will be able to authorise any future use of spit hoods. The bill has arisen following consideration by the Standing Council of Attorneys-General— otherwise known as SCAG—of the feasibility of a nationally coordinated approach to prohibit the use of spit hoods. Jurisdictions agreed to individually review the use of spit hoods in their respective jurisdictions. The use of spit hoods in other jurisdictions varies. South Australia is the only other jurisdiction that has introduced a statutory prohibition.
In more detail, the content of the bill seeks to introduce new section 22A into the Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987 to define spit hood and provide that a juvenile justice officer, a correctional officer or a police officer exercising functions under the Act must not use a spit hood in the exercise of those functions. It also introduces new section 236R into the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 to define spit hood and provide that a correctional officer, police officer or person employed in a private correctional centre exercising functions under the Act must not use a spit hood in the exercise of those functions. It also introduces new section 49A into the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Act 2007 to define spit hood and provide that a person exercising functions under the Act must not use a spit hood in the exercise of those functions.
The bill introduces new section 231A into the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 to define spit hood and provide that a police officer or other detention officer exercising functions under the Act must not use a spit hood in the exercise of those functions. It introduces section new 69A into the Mental Health Act 2007 to define spit hood and provide that an authorised medical officer or another person exercising functions under the Act must not use a spit hood in the exercise of those functions. The bill also makes a consequential amendment to the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 to ensure that new section 69A of the Mental Health Act 2007 applies to the treatment of forensic patients and correctional patients. Notes to those provisions in the bill indicate that contraventions of the provisions may constitute an unauthorised and unreasonable use of force.
The bill defines a spit hood as a covering intended to be placed over a person's head to prevent the person from spitting on or biting another person. The bill also clarifies that a spit hood does not include a helmet designed to prevent self-harm, even if the helmet incorporates a part designed to stop spittle. In terms of stakeholder consultation, again, I acknowledge the Attorney General, his team and everyone involved in the preparation of the legislation. I am delighted to advise the House that all affected New South Wales government agencies were consulted during the drafting of the bill.
There are some important questions that I believe need to be checked off. As with every piece of legislation that comes before us in this place, we must ask ourselves why the policy is needed, based on factual evidence and stakeholder input. A spit hood covers the face or mouth, as mentioned before. I outlined the five Acts amended by the bill. I am delighted to hear that the Opposition will be supporting the legislation. I acknowledge the member for Winston Hills, a sensible member who makes sensible contributions based on fact and what is known to be best. What is the policy's objective, couched in terms of the public interest? It is in the public interest to ensure that detention practices in New South Wales are safe and secure and align with community expectations, and that the use of spit hoods in places of detention is prohibited.
Spit hoods present a risk of choking and asphyxiation and can cause trauma, injury or death to the wearer. What alternative policies and mechanisms were considered in advance of the bill? The reforms implement recommendations arising from the Standing Council of Attorneys‑General to consider the feasibility of nationally coordinated action to prohibit the use of spit hoods, including legislative prohibition, and for Attorneys-General to review individually any residual authorities' use of spit hoods in their jurisdictions. Introducing a statutory prohibition on the use of spit hoods in places of detention can only be done through legislative amendment. As places of detention in New South Wales are not governed by a single Act, the bill amends various Acts, as I have previously stated—five in total—to ensure that the use of spit hoods is prohibited in all relevant settings.
In relation to analysis, what were the pros and cons, and benefits and costs of each option considered? Spit hoods present a risk of choking and asphyxiation, as I previously referred to, and can cause trauma, injury or death to the wearer. The Government considered it appropriate that legislation governing places of detention in New South Wales be amended to prohibit the use of spit hoods by officers exercising functions under relevant Acts. People who work with detainees can be protected from spitting in ways other than by using spit hoods—for example, by using personal protective equipment such as face shields or other appropriate risk-mitigation strategies.
In terms of the pathway, what are the steps and the timetable for the policy's rollout and who will administer it? The bill will commence on assent. The statutory prohibition on the use of spit hoods legislates existing operational practice in places of detention in New South Wales and agencies do not need to take steps to implement the statutory prohibition. In relation to consultation, the detention settings in New South Wales are governed by multiple Acts, as I have outlined, and various ministerial portfolios. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the relevant Ministers who played a key role in this legislation coming before us today for consideration—the Minister for Health, the Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism, the Minister for Corrections and the Minister for Youth Justice—and for the introduction of statutory prohibition on the use of spit hoods in places of detention as part of the consideration of this issue. I thank the House for its indulgence and I commend the bill.
