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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (9 August) . . Page.. 2810 ..

MS TUCKER (1.20 am): I have to support the position taken by Mr Stanhope. Very sensible arguments have been put again on this legislation. Basically, what has been proposed is quite a worrying infringement of our civil liberties. I cannot believe that, once again, we are even debating this. There seems to be a shift in community concern that has in no way been called for. It is a shift which is causing concern in the community. It is a shift which frightens people in the community. People do not want police bursting into their homes on the grounds that they have committed a very minor offence. That is a frightening situation. I hope that this provision will not be supported tonight and I will be greatly relieved if that is the case.

The fact that we are debating this matter is frightening. I think people in the community need to realise how close the vote is going to be tonight on whether this initiative will be passed. It is not what people in Australia expect. This provision is not warranted or justified; it has not been justified by the government in any way. Apparently the police for some reason think this idea might be useful in making their job easier. Maybe it will make their job easier, but the cost is much too great to society as a whole and this measure must not be supported.

MR OSBORNE (1.22 am): Mr Speaker, I, too, have to question proposed subsection (4) (c) and even proposed subsection (4) (d). I can see the argument for (4) (a) and (4) (b). I think some of the points raised by Mr Stanhope are valid in relation to negligent driving, reckless driving, dangerous driving and menacing driving. Police would be able to obtain a warrant if drivers were involved in a serious car accident.

I think that paragraphs (c) and (d) should perhaps not be supported. I do see some merit in supporting paragraphs (a) and (b). Perhaps it would be easier if the vote was broken up.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Attorney-General) (1.23 am): Mr Speaker, I note the points that have been raised in respect of clause 27. I would be quite comfortable with deleting 4 (c) and 4 (d). This would satisfy Mr Osborne's concerns and address the examples raised by Mr Stanhope. Although I do not resile from what I said, I think members would be a lot more comfortable with that outcome. I will move an amendment to delete 4 (c) and 4 (d). Mr Speaker, it might be easier if we voted seriatim on the clauses.

MR SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the Assembly that the question be put seriatim? There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Clause 24 agreed to.

Clause 25 agreed to.

Question put:

That clause 26 be agreed to.

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