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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 8 Hansard (29 August) . . Page.. 2596 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

It is now to be a criminal offence to be embarrassing. How do we define "embarrassing"? How embarrassing something is is very much in the eye of the beholder. It is an entirely subjective concept. We cannot seriously legislate against embarrassment.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Stanhope, you will not be legislating against anything if you speak with your back to that microphone. Hansard cannot pick you up. You will have to turn around a little bit, please.

MR STANHOPE: I think it is serious. It should not be dismissed because of the lateness of the hour or crushed through on the numbers. We cannot as a legislature accept this sort of law-making. We cannot expand the powers of our police and those who enforce the laws to render criminal behaviour that is embarrassing.

Mr Moore spoke about offensive or insulting language. I thought we had the debate about the application of offensive and insulting language legislation years ago and that it was accepted. The courts have been very harsh in their condemnation of some of the actions that have been brought before them by police charging certain individuals with offensive, insulting or threatening language. It is a concept in relation to which these days we rely on the good sense of the police. What is offensive to one person is simply not offensive to a range of other people.

It is such a subjective concept that we should not be legislating to make criminal the use of language that a police officer or an authorised officer regards as unacceptable. The notion is so seriously flawed that it should be dropped altogether. We would support Mr Moore's amendments, but only in a determination to ensure that this provision does not infringe to the extent that it otherwise would.

Mr Rugendyke's amendment is unnecessary. As a legislature, we should not be flexing our muscles and beating our chests to see who can be the toughest. We have enough of this law and order nonsense. We do not need members beating their chests to show just how tough they are.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education) (6.16): There used to be a number of offences like this that the police very capably dealt with in the ACT for many years. I do not think anyone would dispute the fact that we have a well-trained police force well regarded in the community and quite capable of exercising sensible discretion. That is surely something that they would do in relation to Mr Rugendyke's amendment. Some of the things mentioned in the amendment, especially threatening language and threatening behaviour, are very sensible things to have in legislation such as this.

MS TUCKER (6.17): The Greens support Mr Moore's amendments, as Mr Stanhope said, with some reluctance. It is important to support Mr Moore's amendments because they will reduce the impact of Mr Rugendyke's amendment. Mr Rugendyke's previous amendment was about authorised entry to an event arena. That overlaps with the existing powers under clause 15, relating to interference with an event, and clause 8, relating to entry to restricted areas. The proposed new clause 15, relating to interference with an event, prohibits just about anything apart from sitting on your seats.

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