Today the Control of Weapons Amendment Bill 2010 will be debated in the Upper House of the Victorian Parliament. If passed, it will set an unacceptably low bar for the protection of the basic human rights of Victorians. Essentially, this legislation allows for any citizen to be searched, without warrant, on the grounds that they happen to be in a certain public area (without notice of that area being designated for search) and without the basic provisions that are currently in place to protect vulnerable members of our community in such a process.

Imagine that your child (or a child you know) were searched by police simply because they were in a certain place that has been designated for search, without notice to the public. Imagine also that this search wasn’t supervised by someone who is not a police officer — either you or an independent person trained to be there. Imagine, now, that your child were strip searched without an independent person from police present because a police officer suspected that they could be concealing a weapon and determined it was impracticable for you to be there?

This is a scenario that the proposed bill will allow.

Only seven months ago, police were granted new “move on” and search powers after the Summary Offences and Control of Weapons Acts Amendment Bill 2009 was passed by Parliament. This law was found to be in breach of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, but in the face of community concern about knife crime, was passed all the same. Further amendments are now being proposed.

One aspect of these new amendments would allow police to conduct a search (including strip search if a police officer suspects them of possibly concealing a weapon) on children and intellectually disabled people simply in the presence of another police officer — without an independent person present. Sure, if it is “practicable” a parent or guardian should be asked to supervise — what is not clear from the legislation is what “practicable” means and for some young people this is simply not an option.

Although we have no evidence as yet that the new police powers have reduced the carriage of knives in Victoria, we are being asked to accept the need for this further watering down of our human rights and changing of the original laws because it seems it is too administratively burdensome for police to ensure these searches are independently supervised. But what is the alternative?

It is not acceptable to remove basic protections that were put in place to support highly vulnerable members of our community in their interactions with police, merely to ease the operational burden on members of the police force in administering their search powers. Evidence tells us that these vulnerable members of our community are likely to be over-represented in the numbers of citizens searched.

The Act makes it an offence to obstruct or hinder search or fail to comply with direction. Removing the basic protection of having an independent person witness the search will have the effect of escalating the potential for conflict and the likelihood of that person committing an offence.  It will produce further distrust between police and young people and unfortunately, is highly likely to eventually result in incidences of mistreatment of individuals by police.

This Bill is out of step with broader community expectations of how citizens should be treated. The disregard for the rights to privacy and the protection of vulnerable members of our community does not reflect the values of the majority of Victorians. Instead it will set a very dangerous precedent for the sidelining of fundamental human rights and protections in the interest of administrative expediency.

We may be reasonably concerned by the issue of the carriage of knives and the rise in assaults involving knives. But the preservation of fundamental human rights is essential. Basic protections for vulnerable members of our community are there to ensure the safety of all citizens. Let’s hope our elected representatives in the Victorian Parliament don’t forget this as the law-and-order auction escalates in the lead-up to the election.