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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (29 August) . . Page.. 2590 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

I commend these amendments. I think they are reasonable. It is only reasonable that this range of powers be vested in the police and that the police accept responsibility for the carrying out of these important and difficult tasks.

MR HUMPHRIES (Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (5.51): There are many circumstances in ordinary civilian life in the ACT where civilians-that is, proprietors of premises or agents of proprietors of premises-may exclude individuals from premises lawfully and even on occasions with the power to back that direction up with the use of force.

You can be lawfully directed to leave a supermarket, a shop, a cinema, a restaurant-all sorts of venues-in this community by the person who is in charge of that venue. Indeed, if you are in a nightclub or drinking establishment, you can not only be directed to leave but also be physically and forcibly removed by the bouncer at those premises, and that occurs with the full protection of the law, provided it is done within reasonable limits.

Mr Stanhope: And it is often not done within reasonable limits.

MR HUMPHRIES: indeed, it is not, but the question here is what level of training is provided to the people to exercise the power. The people who are exercising this power fall into three categories. They are police officers who are trained to a high level of expertise in the use of such powers; they are fully employed, trained security staff, who have to be registered under the relevant code of practice for crowd marshals which the ACT now has in place and also have to be trained; or they are Olympic volunteers and policing, who have spent the last several months training intensively for this exercise and who have, I believe, training at a high degree to ensure that that exercise these powers responsibly. Each one of those volunteers is, in their spare time, a member of a bush fire brigade or an emergency service brigade in the ACT. They are people used to being able to deal, under discipline, with particular situations which involve contact with the public. Mr Speaker, I have no hesitation in saying that these people are very likely to be able to exercise these powers with considerable care and with great diligence.

What sort of situation might this power be required in? Take a situation where a fight breaks out. Last year at a soccer match in Sydney, there was some major brawling going on and police were engaged in fairly heavy fighting with people involved in the brawl. The police themselves would be fully occupied in the physical restraint of those people who are engaged in fighting. Olympic volunteers, for example, and other authorised staff might be trying to cordon off the area and prevent the situation escalating. People trying to enter that area would be given directions under section 13 to leave the venue and told, "Go away. Do not come into this area."

That is the kind of power which they need to be able to exercise in support generally of the powers that the police exercise, and it is not reasonable to say that they should not have that power. Without that power, they are not able effectively to help the police prevent an event such as the one I have described from escalating.

The Federal Police have indicated to me most strongly that they believe this power should be retained in its present form, and I would urge members not to support the amendments.

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