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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (29 August) . . Page.. 2568 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

Assembly also should have been given this information to enable them to give the matter due consideration.

As Mr Stanhope said, this legislation has been around for over a year. I understand that some details will be given. Yesterday I spoke to Mr Castles, who said that a list was being drawn up and there would be more definite details around the venues as well, but that is not good enough; we should have had an opportunity to look at that beforehand and clarify our views.

I note that a declaration about Olympic venues and the conditions of entry is disallowable; but, given the lateness of the debate on this bill, the Olympics are sure to be over by the time the Assembly could meet again to disallow any dubious declarations. The minister can also declare that a person cannot take a prohibited item into an Olympic venue; but, to my knowledge, such items have not been defined by the minister for us to look at today and could be anything. As I said, I understand that a list is being prepared by the police; but, again, I am concerned about the lateness of the hour at which the Assembly is being told about it and how, in practice, the Assembly will have no say in it.

I am particularly concerned about the offences created by the bill which draw a $1,000 fine. There are offences for entering or remaining in an Olympic venue without consent or without paying, not allowing a frisk search or a search of personal property even before a person has entered a venue, taking a prohibited item into a venue, interfering with an event, entering a restricted area of a venue without consent, and not providing a name and address.

An authorised person, being a police officer or someone authorised by the police, such as a private security guard, can refuse a person entry to a venue or direct them to leave the venue merely on the ground of believing the person may commit an offence. People will be presumed guilty before they have done anything.

There is nothing in the legislation about people being given warnings, so there will be no second chances and no chance for people to explain their actions with a reasonable excuse. These offences seem quite draconian and out of proportion to what is the key action that needs to be taken in such instances, which is merely to refuse entry to the venue or direct a troublemaker to leave the venue.

The minister, in his response to the report of the scrutiny of bills committee which, as Mr Stanhope has already outlined, did raise some quite serious concerns, said that the penalties are needed as a deterrent. Surely a sufficient deterrent would be to exclude people from the event, rather than fining them $1,000. The minister has not adequately explained why we need to go beyond existing common law rights by which operators of venues can set conditions of entry and exclude people who do not abide by such conditions.

The charging of people from interstate and overseas with such offences will be very impractical. Will it be necessary to lock these people up in the remand centre until their trial comes up because of the likelihood that they will disappear after the event? Has any assessment been done of whether our court system will be able to cope with an influx of cases during the Olympics?

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