Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 4 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 978 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

In Australia, such measures were promoted in Acts such as the larrikin Act. The history of curfews and the exclusion of groups from public spaces also needed to acknowledge the progression in Australia of Aboriginal Acts which gave power to declare areas prohibited to Aboriginal people, who had to carry permits to be in certain areas. Fortunately, exclusion from areas no longer happens on racial grounds, and neither do we have youth curfews. However, what we do have in this legislation can, I believe, lead to a similar result. It is putting police in the situation where they have to make decisions about what so-called decent citizens would think appropriate. It is asking them to make decisions about what are legitimate uses of public spaces.

In private malls, the decision made by security guards appears often to be based on whether people are customers of the shops. To be a shopper is legitimate. To sit and busk may not be, depending on how you busk and the management of the day. To hand out political leaflets may not be okay, as Mr Humphries and I found out in the election campaign. Certainly, being in a group of young people just hanging around can be seen as an affront to so-called decent citizens, especially if that group is a bit noisy. Move-on powers bother me for a number of reasons. It is quite possible that our young people will be moved on inappropriately. Aboriginal people and other minority groups certainly have been victims or targets of move-on powers in other places around Australia.

Principles such as the right of lawful assembly and the right to do what you like as long as it is not unlawful are regularly abused with these sorts of policies. This can result, as other members have said - Mr Stanhope in particular - in people becoming angry and actually lead to an increase in conflict. It can also force young people out of central areas, which makes them more vulnerable. We have gone to a lot of trouble to light our city and make it safe. In fact, the most vulnerable people in some ways are the very ones who will be moved on. Of course I want to see everyone able to enjoy the city and I am not saying that uncivil behaviour is okay; but I am saying that move-on powers give a very large responsibility to police. I believe that there will be cases where they are abused. I do not believe that the police will benefit in the long run, because there will be growing antagonism from young people towards these powers that they have.

An open letter was sent to the Assembly by two women who have worked for a long time in the Canberra community, Hellen Cooke and Nancy Shelley - both well known for their work. I would like to read just a part of that open letter to all members, so that it is in Hansard. Basically, they said:

The immediate effect of what is proposed will be the abuse of human rights, in that Article 20(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

Everyone has the right to peaceful assembly and association.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .