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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1882 ..

The Assembly voted-

	 Ayes, 8  			Noes, 9

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

Proposed new clauses 6A to 6D negatived.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8.

MR RUGENDYKE (4.16): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I oppose clause 8.

MS TUCKER (4.17): Under clause 8 a person may be required to give their name to a security officer. Subclause (1) states:

The Greens will not be supporting this clause because we feel that this is an undue intrusion. I understand that the scrutiny of bills committee report said it represents an undue trespass on the rights of people to enter public courts-that is, those which are not closed or restricted to the public for other reasons. For this reason, we will be opposing the clause.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (4.19): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I move amendment No 3 circulated in my name [see schedule 2, part 1, at page 1973]. I share the concerns that Ms Tucker has about clause 8. From what Mr Rugendyke has just said, I assume that he will oppose the clause.

My objection, which shadows the objection that Ms Tucker made, is that the government proposes to give a very open-ended and powerful discretion to a security officer. A person entering or on court premises may be required to tell a security officer their name and address, their reason for entering or being on the premises, and to give evidence of their identity.

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