Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (29 August) . . Page.. 2593 ..
(ii) interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of an Olympic event, or an activity associated with the event, by someone else.
Maximum penalty: 10 penalty units.".
It is in all our interests to promote a peaceful event that discourages soccer hooligans or violent behaviour. That is the purpose of my amendment No 2. I think it is appropriate to flesh out specific offences, to give people a clear and unambiguous indication of what unacceptable behaviour is. For example, to behave in a way that is likely to cause serious alarm is a common offence in New South Wales and other places. It is an offence to affront people, to embarrass people. To disrupt matches in this way would create the offences outlined in paragraph (a) of my amendment.
To use indecent, offensive, insulting or threatening language would also be an offence. The key word here is "threatening". I note Mr Moore's proposed amendment to take out the reference to language. I accept that. My amendment talks about threatening language. That is the sort of behaviour we do not want to see at Bruce Stadium, on the world stage.
Why should people be able to damage people or property? Why should people be able to engage in violent behaviour? These are the sorts of offences that I have drawn out as generic offences, to give an indication of things are unacceptable behaviour at our Olympic Games.
I encourage members to support this amendment. I note that Mr Moore proposes to move some amendments to it.
MR MOORE (Minister for Health and Community Care) (6.03): I seek leave to move two amendments to Mr Rugendyke's amendment together.
Leave granted.
MR MOORE: I move:
No 1-
Proposed paragraphs 15 (a) and (b), omit the paragraphs.
No 2-
Proposed paragraph 15 (c), omit the words "offensive, insulting,".
I am reminded of the scrutiny of bills committee report on Mr Rugendyke's Adult Entertainment and Restricted Material Bill. You might recall that that had five pages of comment on ambiguity of language and the restriction that imposed on free speech. There are some similarities here. I quote from page 3 of that report:
Are the definitions too vague to be acceptable as a standard for the application of the criminal law?
It went on to talk about those definitions. The scrutiny of bills committee has not had a chance to look at Mr Rugendyke's amendments, because they only became available today, and they have not had a chance to look at my amendments, because I have only just drawn them up as well.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .