Page 1432 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 17 April 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
an echo of that earlier cry from Mr Collaery in his closing remarks, where he castigated Mr Berry for using provisions from the 1900 Crimes Act, suggesting that Mr Berry was picking up and adopting a turn of the century provision. But, of course, that is wrong too, because section 351 of the Crimes Act, which is the provision for detention of drunken persons, was inserted in that Act in 1983. So, in fact, the provision that Mr Berry is modelling it on is a fairly modern piece of legislation, and to say that it is a 1900 provision is purely rhetoric.
Mr Collaery: It is in the context of the Crimes Act. It deals with drunks in the Crimes Act.
MR CONNOLLY: It is found in a piece of legislation which was first passed in 1900, true; but the provision and the legislative formula are quite modern. Mr Berry's legislation translates those powers to a civil setting and addresses what is agreed by both sides of the chamber to be a pressing problem. All we can hope in opposition, as we clearly do not have the numbers to force the pace on this, is that the Government can be taken at its word that it will address this quickly, and that this is not just going to be another hollow and pious promise. We hope that it is going to get around to addressing this problem. It is a problem that, as we said earlier, the Opposition has been able to address constructively, with its limited resources, and the Government, with its vastly greater resources, can only say that it is going to get around to it some time.
Motion (by Mr Kaine) put:
That the debate be now adjourned.
The Assembly voted -
AYES, 10 NOES, 6
Mr Collaery Mr Berry
Mr Duby Mr Connolly
Mr Humphries Ms Follett
Mr Jensen Mrs Grassby
Mr Kaine Mr Moore
Dr Kinloch Mr Wood
Ms Maher
Mrs Nolan
Mr Prowse
Mr Stefaniak
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .