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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (29 August) . . Page.. 2567 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

to feel safe and to be safe, as do the soccer players and officials of each of the competing nations.

We understand that to be Mr Rugendyke's sentiment and we share that. However, in a context in which the scrutiny of bills committee, a committee chaired by Mr Osborne, has described some of the powers within this legislation as draconian, it is our concern that the extent to which Mr Rugendyke seeks to add to those powers really does exacerbate that description. We think that the provisions the Attorney has provided in relation to police powers to control behaviour are sufficient and we would be more inclined to rely on the judgment and discretion of the police officers in those circumstances where they believe action needs to be taken and that the prescriptive and articulated list of offences contained within Mr Rugendyke's amendments simply is not necessary.

As I indicated, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I do have a couple of amendments. I will move them at the appropriate time.

MS TUCKER (4.26): The Greens also have some concerns about this legislation. We also believe that we do need to ensure that there are no serious breaches of security at these sorts of events, so it is about looking at achieving a balance between security concerns and civil liberties.

Obviously, the Olympic Games will be a huge event, attracting international attention and it is the case that there are groups and individuals in Australia and overseas who would like to use the focus on the Olympics to bring their own particular causes to the attention of the public. The Olympics may also attract people who take barracking for their own country to extremes or who just want to have as much fun as possible.

These activities, where they do not impact on the rights of others to enjoy the events, are all fine up to a point and add to the excitement and character of the Olympics. Unfortunately, such activities can turn nasty and even violent and need to be controlled; so we do think that it is reasonable for Olympics organisers to want to ensure that athletes and spectators are able to participate in the games in a safe and secure manner. But, as I said, a balance has to be drawn between the need to have laws and police powers to ensure public safety versus the need to check the civil liberties of people attending the games. I think that this bill errs too much on the side of police powers and not enough on the side of civil liberties.

The bill is quite general in a number of areas and gives the minister and his agents, such as the police and authorised security guards, much discretion in how they handle security threats. The definitions of an Olympic event and Olympic venue to which this bill applies are very vague. The minister can make a declaration that a sporting event or any other event associated with the Olympic Games is covered by the bill.

The venue at which an Olympic event is being held also is not clearly defined. An Olympic venue includes not only the place stated in the declaration as the location of the event, but also any place incidental to the holding of the event. I assume the police will decide for themselves which areas are incidental places, but I think the public has a right to know beforehand which areas this legislation will apply to. I think members of this

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