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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (29 August) . . Page.. 2569 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I am also concerned about the ability of the minister to authorise anyone, including volunteers, to have the powers allowed under the bill. I note particularly that authorised persons are also authorised to use such force as is necessary to apprehend and detain a person and to remove a person from a venue. I would be interested to know how the minister will make sure that these authorised people will have the necessary skill and experience in crowd control and arresting. Is this just an attempt to outsource police powers? We have already had some very unacceptable incidents involving people being authorised to use force in various situations, such as crowd control, and not being skilled to do so. The consequences of that have been very unfortunate.

In conclusion, I remain to be convinced that the powers contained in this bill are really necessary, given the range of existing police powers. I am also concerned, as I said, about the lateness of the hour at which this bill is being debated, just two weeks from the first event in Canberra, making its passage almost a fait accompli.

MR MOORE (Minister for Health and Community Care) (4.33): I rise to support this piece of legislation. Of course there are some liberties issues associated with the bill and it is draconian in some respects, but we are dealing with a very special event. In this sense, I share with Mr Stanhope the comment that we are dealing with a particular set of circumstances requiring consideration being given to providing special powers to the police for a very short period.

I am very pleased that there is a sunset clause in this legislation, which is entirely appropriate for an event of this type and this kind. We have seen what has happened with some soccer situations in particular in other parts of the world, particularly in Europe, where it is quite clear that appropriate police powers are needed. These are not the sorts of powers that I would normally agree to, but there will be special circumstances in which it will be entirely appropriate for these sorts of powers to be handed to police. I think it is entirely appropriate to do so. I am certainly prepared and keen to support the legislation.

The scrutiny of bills committee drew our attention to the fact that this legislation is draconian. I think there is a message in there about whether we should consider extending it other than in similar specific circumstances which have the potential of bringing to the ACT people whom Ms Tucker described as following a particular form of extremism in their own country. We know from experience that this has been the case in previous Olympic situations. It is entirely appropriate, therefore, that we use some draconian legislation to handle such a circumstance. There may even be another circumstance in the future where an Assembly wants to consider imposing similar legislation for a very limited period for a specific purpose.

In spite of the fact that the legislation is draconian, it is acceptable to me. I note that Mr Rugendyke has circulated some amendments that would make it even more draconian. I will speak to those in more detail later. Members may note that I have circulated some amendments to Mr Rugendyke's amendments. Mr Rugendyke's first amendment is excellent and ought to be supported. It is about providing penalties for people who, for example, race on to an oval or soccer field and act inappropriately when a game finishes. The penalty there is appropriate. But I have some concerns about the rest of Mr Rugendyke's amendments and I have prepared amendments accordingly.

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