Page 1487 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 2 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
These legal people have pointed out the important aspects of the civil liberties and the fact that there were already adequate police powers. As I have said, the committee did moderate its views. I can only assume that that was as a result of those approaches, because the committee does not say that. What it did was to replace the original jack boot approach with a bully boy boot approach. Why was there inadequate discussion in this report?
Mr Stefaniak: You would like to write your own report, with your own bias in it, wouldn't you?
MR WOOD: No, I would not. If you come to any of my committees, you will see that I want to reflect all views. I want to see a clear expression of the whole range of views expressed in that report, and I thank you for your nods, Ms Maher. When I am the chair or a member of a committee, I am absolutely meticulous about doing that. Therefore, I must ask the question.
I suspect that in all this there was an element of guilt among committee members as they brought down their report, so they wrote into it a clause that the legislation should cease in two years. They were not totally confident about it; that is clear.
The purpose of this Bill is to remove those powers now. Let us not leave this legislation. It was never required, so let us get out of it. Indeed, how serious was the committee? Let me quote paragraph 3.30 of the report:
The committee recommends that: a committee be formed to monitor, at six month intervals, the effects of the legislation ...
That committee was to collect information and report before the end of the two-year period. Mr Stefaniak, Mr Collaery and Ms Maher have taken no steps to do that, so perhaps they were not too serious about it.
Mr Stefaniak: You might be wrong there. Mr Collaery will do something later today.
MR WOOD: He is going to do something? That is terrific.
Mr Collaery: Yes, I think the public should know. I will be tabling a full, comprehensive report this afternoon.
MR WOOD: That is terrific. That is the reason I put on notice on 20 March a motion to seek this information, because it had not been forthcoming. Perhaps that has brought some action.
These proposals for move-on powers were never needed. Since the legislation was passed, it has become clear that that is the case. Six months have demonstrated that they are not needed, so let us remove them. Let us get rid of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .