Page 3088 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 15 September 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
They have made a number of assertions, but the factual evidence presented by the Attorney and the anecdotal evidence available to the Government and, I am sure, to at least one of the independent members indicate that there is a great concern by the people against whom it has been primarily used that it should not continue.
What we are talking about today is a requirement for the Opposition and Mr Stevenson to redebate and to justify the Bill again. They have failed to justify why this provision should continue. The sunset clause was included in the legislation for a particular reason. Once the sunset clause comes into force, there should be an obligation upon anybody who wishes to see it continue to reargue the case and justify its continuation.
Mr Stevenson: You should have read the statements.
MR LAMONT: I did, in fact, read the statements, Mr Stevenson.
Mr Stevenson: You missed the whole point.
MR LAMONT: No, I have not missed the whole point. Unfortunately, it would not matter what the point was; it would not matter what the argument was. Because of your penchant for seeing things in stark black or stark white, the ability to come to grips with any argument, I am afraid, is just slightly beyond you.
Mr Stevenson: What a nonsense! I spent 10 minutes saying the opposite.
MR LAMONT: Unfortunately, you spend 10 minutes saying the opposite every time you get up to speak.
Mr Stevenson: No, the opposite to what you just said.
MR LAMONT: The opposite to what you said the last time you spoke about it. The view which I have expressed is in stark relief to that put on behalf of the Opposition by Mr Humphries today.
Thankfully, it is obvious that this Bill will be defeated today. I hope that, when the Community Law Reform Committee reports back to the Attorney and that report is tabled, we have the occasion to continue the debate. I think it is something which we as a legislature should be required to review continually, but in doing so those people who seek to remove an entitlement from the community should justify their position. I suggest to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that they have failed to do so this day.
MR BERRY (Minister for Health, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (11.46): Mr Deputy Speaker, I was not going to speak on this Bill, but I find a few things that have been said a little upsetting. The police, no doubt, have a difficult job. I think everybody in this place recognises that. But I do not think that these move-on powers would make the policeman's or policewoman's job any easier. I have never heard of a police force suggesting that they should give up any of their powers either.
Mr Humphries: It is like giving them wages and conditions, is it not, Wayne?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .