Page 1810 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 1 May 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
needs to be tied in with this idea of a proclaimed place. I support the notion of a proclaimed place, as has the Chief Minister in his response to the Social Policy Committee's recommendations.
Mr Speaker, we do not support the Bill in its present form. I am not saying that we will not support another Bill brought forward by Mr Berry in an appropriate form. When he analyses the comments we have made, he may have a better idea - - -
Mr Berry: Who could do that? Who could distil anything sensible from what you have just said?
MR COLLAERY: Mr Speaker, the record shows that my Government Law Office and I as Attorney have assisted Mr Connolly, because I know what it is like to be in opposition. It is extremely difficult to frame legislation. We have done that in the past, so it is not a case of being bloody-minded. I am saying to Mr Berry that, if he wants to bring his Bill forward in the context that it meets the things that I have said, we may well support it.
But the fact is that - through you, Mr Speaker - I say to the Opposition: You push on with a revised Bill, but at the same time - - -
Mr Berry: What revisions would you like to be made?
MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Berry!
MR COLLAERY: We are trying to put the thing together. Mr Berry asks what revisions I would like. Their role on the other side of the house is a matter for them; but, if Mr Berry sets out to me what his objectives are, we may be able to start a dialogue. If that is the outcome of his initiative, it is good. I think he has got the credit in the town for the initiative. My advice is, Mr Speaker, that the suggested amendments that my advisers put to me would require a complete rewrite of the Bill. They have also advised me, as I have said before, that the Bill contravenes the Privacy Act in respect of recommended record-keeping practices. I am sure that Mr Berry did not intend that, and I am sure that it was not pointed out to him. I am sure that, had it been, he would not have gone ahead.
I am advised that it offers police immunity from civil litigation and that it ascribes powers of custody to authorised persons, and that comes back to what the Council for Civil Liberties has put to me about recognising the fact that in New South Wales it has given powers to people other than the police, who are the only elements in society apart from some military police that we authorise to have detention powers. It is an issue that needs more examination. It may well be an issue that could be dealt with as a specific exercise by one of the committees of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .