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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (29 August) . . Page.. 2566 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

I think it is also significant that, whilst the declaration of those items is a disallowable instrument, the timing of this debate prevents any scrutiny of that declaration before the Olympics commence. If the instrument is disallowed after an event, I do acknowledge that clause 17 of the bill allows the undoing of any offences that were committed at the event; but, of course, the horse will have bolted. It is a point that we have had 18 months in which to debate this bill.

In the letters which I did write to the Attorney on this matter and to which he did not respond, I indicated that the Labor Party did want a bipartisan approach to this bill, that we were prepared to work with the Attorney; we just wanted more information. We realise that security at any event is important and that Canberrans attending Olympic events are entitled to expect them to be conducted in a safe environment. We are happy for the police to have the necessary and reasonable powers to ensure that people do not have access to weapons or prohibited items at an Olympic venue. But it has been very difficult in the context of the way that this process has ensued to get the necessary assurances about the appropriateness of the range of powers and the sorts of items that will be prohibited.

I note in relation to the bill that in any declaration the minister may make in relation to the Olympics he may make it a condition of entry to the event that persons seeking to enter the venue submit to a search of their personal property and, if requested by an authorised person, submit to a frisk search of their person. An authorised person is a police officer or any other person authorised by the minister or his delegate under clause 16 of the bill. If the demand for police officers outstrips the supply, Olympic volunteers from the bushfire and emergency services, plus the contracted security service, may be appointed as authorised persons. Under the bill, these authorised persons could conduct frisk searches.

There is no limitation in the bill on the authorised person's authority to select persons for frisk searching, nor is there any requirement in the bill for that frisk search be conducted by an authorised person of the same sex as the person being searched. Clause 10(2) of the bill makes it an offence for any person without reasonable excuse to refuse to permit an authorised person to carry out a frisk search of their person. In the context of those powers, we are asked by the Attorney to rely on the good judgment and the discretion of the authorised person to do the right thing.

I indicate now that the Labor Party will be seeking some simple amendments to the bill to ameliorate those two aspects of the bill. In the view of the Labor Party searches, whether of property or the person, should be performed only if the authorised person has a reasonable belief that the person being searched has in their possession a prohibited item-as I indicated before, at this stage we do not even know what the prohibited items will be-and a frisk search should be carried out only by an authorised person who is a police officer of the same sex as the person being searched. I have circulated some amendments that give effect to that sentiment.

I should also indicate now that the Labor Party has considered some amendments circulated by Mr Rugendyke to this bill. Whilst we understand that Mr Rugendyke shares the view of all of us, we are of the view that the people of Canberra have a right to enjoy the Olympics in peace and security, to the extent that one looks for peace and security at a vigorously conducted and competitive soccer match; but in that context one has a right

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