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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (29 August) . . Page.. 2578 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

enters an airport restricted area has to have that search. The security will not be as effective at an airport if police or security officers are not able to conduct a search unless they believe, on reasonable grounds, an objective test-

Mr Hargreaves: It is only a random check by Customs.

MR HUMPHRIES: No. Everybody entering an airport security area has to be searched. Their property certainly is searched, and metal is detected when people walk through a metal detector or have a magnometer passed over their body. That is not in the case of suspicion; that is in the case of every person who enters the area.

The effect of Mr Stanhope's amendments Nos 1 and 2 will be that such searches cannot be conducted unless there is a reasonable grounds for believing that they should be conducted. Pass this amendment and you dramatically affect the capacity of the police and others responsible for security at Bruce Stadium to be able to conduct searches of goods passing into the venue. I do not think you people realise what you are proposing here. You cannot have the random searches which are integral to providing for the safe and effective provision of security at the Olympic venue.

It might seem sensible to try to put some provision in place which limits the amount of searching going on, but that is not going to be in the interests of safety and security at the venue. You people have had a lot to say about safety and security in recent days. This is a measure about ensuring the safety and security of people at Olympic venues, including visitors to our city. I do not think it behoves you to start watering those provisions down, particularly in this little-thought-through way. You cannot have an effective search regime if people do not have the power to search randomly. Your amendment prevents that from taking place. Think again.

MR HARGREAVES (5.05): The Attorney-General has quite deftly flipped the issues. He missed the point completely, which does not surprise me, given his preoccupation with silly things all day. The issue at the heart of the amendment proposed by Mr Stanhope is that only police do it.

Mr Humphries: I take a point of order Mr Speaker.

MR HARGREAVES: Mr Speaker-

Mr Humphries: I am taking a point of order.

MR HARGREAVES: I cannot sit down. Go on.

Mr Humphries: I will explain the point of order if you sit down.

MR HARGREAVES: I can't. Are you deaf?

Mr Humphries: You cannot sit down?

MR HARGREAVES: Correct.

MR SPEAKER: Stay standing, Mr Hargreaves. It is all right.

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