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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (29 August) . . Page.. 2587 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Our legislation simply allows items to be prohibited. What is to be prohibited will be before the Assembly next week, for it to consider and decide whether it wants to disallow or amend or does not wish to disallow or amend. To some extent, that is off the point. I come back to the fact that in this legislation we are seeking the same power which exists if you enter a supermarket, where there is a provision that your bags can be searched, if that is the wish, without reasonable excuse, by the proprietors or the agents of the proprietors of that supermarket, or if you wish to enter the restricted area of an airport. We are seeking the same powers in respect of the international Olympic venue in the ACT for a space of less than 14 days.

Question put:

The Assembly voted-

Ayes, 8  	Noes, 9

Mr Berry  	Ms Carnell
Mr Corbell  	Mr Cornwell
Mr Hargreaves  	Mr Hird
Mr Kaine  	Mr Humphries
Mr Quinlan  	Mr Moore
Mr Stanhope  	Mr Osborne
Ms Tucker  	Mr Rugendyke
Mr Wood  	Mr Smyth
 		Mr Stefaniak

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Stanhope, are you proceeding with your amendment No 2? It is similar to your No 1.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (5.42): Yes, I will, because I think it is an important proposition. In a way, amendment No 2 is more important than No 1, which we have just debated, insofar as amendment No 2 relates to the searching of a person's person rather than their property. I will not say anything more. We have had the debate, but I would persist with the amendment. I move:

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