Page 4336 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 7 December 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is very interesting to note that, in addressing the arguments tonight, neither Mr Berry nor Mr Connolly has addressed the principle of why that kind of anticipatory power is necessary when it is not required in other kinds of legislation in the ACT. They have said, "We have done it for a long time and other States do it. Therefore it is good enough". Those are not good enough arguments, Madam Speaker. As Mr Connolly continually tells us, the ACT can do better than other jurisdictions. As he continually tells us, we are constantly updating the laws of the Territory to improve them from the state that they were in hitherto. The Labor Government is making things better, to quote Mr Berry's often used phrase. Madam Speaker, if that is the case we should be looking at every piece of law in this Territory, whether of recent origin or of ancient origin, and saying, "Is this an appropriate law to protect the rights and citizens of the ACT?". That is the issue that has been carefully avoided, with all the rhetoric, all the bluster and all the abuse being hurled from the other side of this chamber. It has been carefully avoided in this debate so far and I will come back to it.
Madam Speaker, I want to quote Mr Connolly's comments from 15 September. He said:
The Labor Party, whether in government or in opposition, does not believe that there should be arbitrary law on the statute books in the Australian Capital Territory that gives police officers extraordinary powers to interfere with the rights of citizens who have committed no crime.
Mr Cornwell: Who said that?
MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Connolly. In fact, he said it not once but three times in almost identical terms in the course of that one debate. What is the real distinction between that case and the case that has been put forward in the Bill tonight? Let us examine them. What is the harm being addressed here? The harm is the apprehension of violent conduct in public places which results in individuals in this community being hurt. That was the issue with that Bill. In the Bill before us tonight the issue is people not being injured by consumption of food which is not fit for human consumption. Apparently the two are very similar, would you not say, Madam Speaker? Is it not very similar to talk about those two sorts of goals in the one breath? We are talking about the grounds on which that kind of power might be exercised.
Mr Berry told the Assembly that there is a safety catch in his Bill. The safety catch is that the power to anticipate that a crime is going to be committed can be exercised by a health inspector only where there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is going to be committed. That, he said, was the distinction between this and the move-on powers. That is not so.
Mr Connolly: No, no.
MR HUMPHRIES: That is what Mr Berry said, Mr Connolly. I am not going to change it now. We do not want to correct his Hansard record. What he said was that "reasonable grounds" was the basis on which a court could refuse the exercise of this power. Let me read from the move-on powers Act. It states:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .