Page 3087 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 15 September 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I personally have concerns. Let there be no doubt. I think Mr Connolly made some very valid points about individual rights. If there is one thing above all we need to protect, it is the Constitution. You might say, "I was just talking about individual rights". That is all it is. What it does is make sure that there is a limitation on government power. In the Canberra Times this morning, Ron Castan, the head of the Civil Liberties Council, talking on a defamation matter, said that the Constitution is a Bill of limitations. That puts it as well as you could ever put it. It was never something that gave politicians unlimited or a great deal of power. When the States decided - and one could argue whether it was a good idea or not - to form a federation, they gave certain powers to the Commonwealth Government. They were not powers but limitations. They said, "You can go so far and no further".
The truth of the matter is that we need to look after people's rights, as Mr Connolly quite rightly said. But here we have the community supporting the police move-on powers. We have had no major complaints to the contrary. There will always be some concerns and some problems with any law; we know that. In this case I will vote once again for the community, who want the powers, even though, as I said, I have certain concerns.
MR LAMONT (11.40): The interesting thing about this debate in this Assembly is that it is the first time that we have debated police move-on powers at this length. The debate quite clearly identifies stark differences about what are assessed as the rights and the obligations of living in a community such as the ACT. It also identifies the stark difference between Mr Stevenson, who I would suggest would have a more hard and fast view than that expressed by the Liberals, and us. The question is seen as of either black or white. There appears to be no room for the shades of grey which permeate just about every waking moment of most people's lives. Matters are just not as stark as either Mr Humphries suggests or Mr Stevenson believes.
The question that we are talking about is whether or not we should continue what is basically an infringement against a particular class of our citizenry. The figures have been debated and discussed by the Attorney. From the types of suggestions made by Mr De Domenico, it would appear as though the move-on powers were, or are to be, targeted towards a specific class of our citizenry - in general, our youth. Mr De Domenico spent quite a deal of his time talking about youth gangs and so forth. Along with the Attorney, I believe that there are appropriate ways for those matters to be addressed pursuant to existing law, without the requirement to extend this rather odious provision. When the First Assembly considered this matter - and I have read the debates, which were quite interesting - it took the view that a sunset clause should be placed in the legislation. In my view, the placing of a sunset clause in the legislation is tantamount to requiring the body considering the continuation of that legislation to come forth with reasons why it should continue.
I do not accept the view that has been put by Mr Stevenson and by Mr De Domenico that there has been no great rush from the community to say that this power should not be continued. They have attempted to put up arguments as to why it should. That is the way that this debate should go. Mr Humphries and his supporters in this chamber should be required to put up an argument as to why the power should continue. They have failed to do so.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .