Page 474 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 28 June 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
therefore decrease the number of persons charged with more substantive offences and appearing before the courts. Not only will it make Canberra safer for honest citizens, but it will also mean that fewer offenders are charged with the more serious street offences I have mentioned earlier in this speech.
Much has been said by Ms Follett and other members of the Labor Party and other opponents of this legislation about civil liberties. I fear that that really is a fallacious argument on two grounds. Firstly, let us talk about whose civil liberties are really being affected. Mr Speaker, the only civil liberties that are really being infringed here are those of the offenders to do as they please in harassing innocent citizens, who are usually the elderly, the young and women. The oppressor's liberty to oppress is being protected and the victim's right to free passage around Canberra is being withheld.
Do opponents of this Bill really want to protect the liberty of louts to do such things as harass old ladies at bus interchanges? Just recently, the wife of one of our staff members witnessed a rather dreadful example of this. As has been the case recently in Canberra, it was awful weather, it was raining and it was between 2 o'clock and 3 o'clock in the afternoon. At the city interchange was an old woman of about 80 years of age, with her shopping bag full, standing in the rain, because a large number of louts, aged about 15, of both sexes, were drinking and carrying on in the bus interchange shelter. The wife of our staff member went up to the old lady and said, "Why don't you get out of the rain?". The old lady said she would not go into that bus shelter; she was terrified to do so because of what was occurring in there. I think that is really intolerable.
Do opponents of this Bill want to see common occurrences such as another incident that a lady referred to me during the recent election campaign? It concerned her 17-year-old son, whom she referred to as a gangly kid, being harassed in Garema Place by a number of louts around about his age. As they hassled him, called him names, impeded his progress, and generally gave him a bad time, but fell short of actually physically assaulting him, he attempted to leave the area. He was followed to a dark car park and beaten by these same people. His head was kicked in and he spent about a week in a coma. He was lucky to survive and he is now terrified to go out into certain places of Canberra, especially to the major shopping centres such as Garema Place, where this incident emanated from.
Do opponents of this Bill want to see brawls that occur regularly now outside drinking establishments in Canberra in the early hours of the morning, such as those that have occurred with monotonous regularity outside the tavern that used to be known as JDs in London Circuit, the Private Bin, various other establishments in Weedon Close, Belconnen, and in Phillip?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .