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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (29 August) . . Page.. 2595 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I can well see circumstances where the use of certain language can lead to a serious breakdown in security. I suspect that many of the security incidents which have broken out at sporting events in recent years have resulted from the use of language, not initially from behaviour of any sort-

Mr Moore: "Get stuffed!"

MR HUMPHRIES: Now, listen, shagface, I am telling you this is the case.

Mr Moore: That is bloody well intimidating.

MR HUMPHRIES: Once I get you outside, you will see what is intimidating. I think that what Mr Rugendyke proposes is appropriate. The Liberal Party does not support Mr Moore's amendment to Mr Rugendyke's amendment. We think it is appropriate to spell out what it is that this provision about disruptive behaviour means, and that is what Mr Rugendyke's amendment does.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (6.09): As I indicated earlier, the Labor Party does not support this amendment. We do support Mr Moore's attempt to bring more certainty to the issue, but we would prefer to see this amendment not proceeded with.

I think the bill as drafted by the Attorney provides the authorities with the necessary range of powers. I do not think it is clever law-making to seek to enumerate a range of issues that an authorised officer or a police officer needs to take into account when coming to a decision as to whether or not, under the legislation, certain behaviour might create the disruption that we are all concerned to ensure does not occur.

I agree very much with what Mr Moore said. His amendments go to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). To some extent, those paragraphs of Mr Rugendyke's amendment cause me the most disquiet. To legislate that an authorised officer at a sporting event can take certain action in relation to the behaviour of a person that that authorised officer believes is embarrassing is an extreme abuse of legislative power. To expect an authorised officer at a game of soccer being viewed, let us hope, by 25,000 people to take action against a person behaving in a way that that authorised officer or police person thinks is embarrassing is inappropriate and wrong.

What is embarrassing to Mr Rugendyke will very likely not be embarrassing to me. What is embarrassing to a police officer may very well not be embarrassing to me. Behaviour that I engage in that is embarrassing to lots of other people is probably not embarrassing to my family or to those who might love me or forgive me or understand my foibles or eccentricities.

It is very dangerous and serious to suggest that we should legislate to allow an authorised officer or a police officer to take certain actions and to subject a resident of Canberra, one of our constituents, to a criminal penalty for acting in an embarrassing way, in a way to be determined on the judgment of that authorised officer or that policeman. That is incredibly dangerous and wrong. It simply cannot be supported.

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