Page 1160 - Week 04 - Thursday, 21 March 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Wood: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It has not happened before, probably, but that does not mean that it may not happen. Mr Speaker, I direct your attention to standing order 116. I will read it, although you have it in front of you. It states most clearly:
Questions may be put to a Member, not being a Minister, relating to any Bill, motion or other public matter connected with the business of the Assembly, of which the Member has charge.
I await your ruling.
MR SPEAKER: Your position is upheld, Mr Wood. Please ask your question.
MR WOOD: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Berry, would you please explain the meaning of clause 6 in your Bill, which has been likened to the move-on powers Bill by the Attorney-General and the Minister for Finance and Urban Services in today's Canberra Times?
MR BERRY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Wood, for that question, and I will make sure that I give as concise as possible an answer - and it will be accurate. This question, of course, is a response to a scurrilous campaign of misinformation about this Bill. In the first place there are no similarities between the Intoxicated Persons (Care and Detention) Bill and the move-on powers Bill. Mr Speaker, my Bill does not create an offence, unlike the move-on powers Bill. There would be no charges laid as a result of my Bill, unlike the move-on powers Bill. My Bill contains no penalties, unlike the move-on powers Bill. My Bill is supported by the ACT Council for Civil Liberties, unlike the move-on powers which were a clear infringement of civil liberties.
Mr Speaker, it is a gross distortion for Mr Collaery and Mr Duby to say that there is any similarity. Mr Collaery, as a lawyer, knows it, and it looks to me as if Mr Duby is taking his advice from Mr Collaery. But it may be obvious why Mr Duby was asked to comment on this issue. The powers of detention in clause 6 of my Bill are essentially the same as those in section 351 of the Crimes Act, which is already in force in the Territory and is administered by this Attorney-General.
Mr Collaery: Who wrote this for you?
MR BERRY: Have a look at the Crimes Act. The difference is that my Bill seeks to detain these people somewhere other than in a police station, as you may recall. Mr Duby objects to the prospect of being detained in police cells for eight hours for drunkenness. He seems to be blissfully ignorant of the fact that that is the current law in the ACT.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .