Page 1655 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 18 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Stevenson's comments about needing to be very careful about these traditional freedoms are very valid ones. It is something that, in common law countries, we have always been very careful of. In Europe it is quite acceptable and nobody bats an eye at the prospect of being asked, "Where are your papers?". You have to produce your papers wherever you go. Citizens have to produce their identity papers when they wander down the street. Nobody worries about that. There is no cultural problem. The Australian tradition goes back to all that nice flowery rhetoric about the yeomen of Britain and so forth. The Australian tradition has been that you can walk down the street and nobody has the ability - - -
Mr Stevenson: It is more than rhetoric.
MR CONNOLLY: It is more than rhetoric, Mr Stevenson. Nobody has the right to say to me when I am walking down the street, "Who are you? Where are your papers?". I have a right to go about my business, providing I am not interfering with your business, without being hassled. That is an important and hard-won freedom that people should jealously guard. Mr Stevenson's comments about being very cautious are very valid. For that reason we had always said that we would embrace this card only when the youth sector agreed. We did get agreement from the youth sector and as soon as that happened we said, "Yes, now we can go ahead". Mr Moore berates us for backflips, but, instead, we have been going through a consultative process. We did say to the youth sector - I have advised the Assembly of this previously - that we will be bringing in some civil liberties safeguards to assure the youth sector, and hopefully to assure Dennis Stevenson, that this is not a process that is going to become de facto a compulsory identity card. We have real concerns about that.
We said in our response to the report Civic by Night from the ACT Community Safety Committee that it may well be that this card is useful. We are not going to put on a statutory basis an upper age at which the card can be accessed, but it may well be that when we introduce a package of civil liberties protections the usefulness of this card as a form of general purpose identification may be somewhat limited. We think it is most important that we do not create de facto compulsory formal identification. That is an issue that we can debate if members wish, and I think we will debate it when dealing with some legislation that is before the Assembly; but we do say that there is a very fundamental civil liberties point here. We do not object to Mr Moore's motion. The proof of age card, when it is introduced, when we bring in the legislative changes to protect civil liberties - which Mr Moore endorses, and which I would hope Mr Stevenson will endorse - will be open to anyone. But it is important that we avoid the slippery slope - that, for this pragmatic reason and for that pragmatic reason, we gradually end up in a situation where my right to wander down the street without being stopped by anybody and without having to prove who I am or that I am going about a lawful purpose is interfered with. Those rights are hard won. They should not be interfered with lightly.
MADAM SPEAKER: Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 77, as amended by temporary order.
Sitting suspended from 12.30 to 2.30 pm
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .