Page 690 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 5 July 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
orders, Mr Speaker. I call for the Deputy Chief Minister to speak to the motion.
MR SPEAKER: Objection overruled, Mr Collaery. Please proceed, Deputy Chief Minister.
MR WHALAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will now return to the Collaery amendment to the Stefaniak Bill. Far from protecting the community, it places it at much greater risk of losing its civil liberties. I would urge Dr Kinloch, as a member of the Council for Civil Liberties, to examine very carefully the wording of that particular legislation.
The Collaery legislation provides that a police officer may direct a person, not to cease loitering, which was the Stefaniak proposal, but to leave. So the policeman can walk up to a person and direct a person to leave, not to cease loitering, which has a different connotation altogether.
Mr Jensen: I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would suggest that the Minister is not addressing the motion to hand. He is not addressing the issue of referring the Bill in its unamended form to a select committee. He is attempting, I would suggest, Mr Speaker, to debate the issue, which he will have ample opportunity to do when the Bill comes back into this place.
MR SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Jensen. My ruling on this is that we have allowed all members to debate at will on this issue. Members should restrict their comments to definite points of order.
MR WHALAN: Mr Speaker, I appreciate your support on this, and I think it is worth noting that the effect of Mr Collaery's and Mr Jensen's interjections and points of order has been to deny me speaking time. It has been an effective gag; it has been yet a further effective gag on my right to address this Assembly on this matter.
The qualification in this variation to the legislation makes it quite clear that the powers of the police under the Collaery amendment are far more draconian than the powers even envisaged under the Stefaniak legislation. It is clearly a far greater extension of police powers than even Mr Stefaniak considered.
I would like to refer now to the proposal about the select committee. I would submit that this select committee is out of order, pursuant to standing orders 217 and 221, and I particularly draw attention to the terms of reference of the Standing Committee on Social Policy. The question there is again one of approach. We are talking about the needs of people who have genuine concerns in the community as against the rights of other people in the community. So we have concerns and rights, and these relate to social justice issues. That is why it should be examined in the context of the social justice issues.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .