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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2393 ..

They can go in there if they are invited in by someone who is a resident, who is in imminent danger of suffering or who has suffered injury. They can also go in under a warrant, which they must obtain from a magistrate, or “in circumstances of seriousness and urgency, in accordance with section 190”. So, unless the police are going in there because someone is in danger and has invited them in, or the police themselves have a warrant, the circumstances have to be serious and urgent.

What do we have here? All a union official has to do is suspect, on reasonable grounds, that there is a contravention of the act. What does section 190 say about circumstances of seriousness and urgency? It says:

Entry in emergencies

A police officer may enter premises where the officer believes on reasonable grounds that—

(a) an offence or a breach of the peace is being or is likely to be committed, or a person has suffered physical injury or there is imminent danger of injury to a person or damage to property; and

(b) it is necessary to enter the premises immediately for the purpose of preventing the commission or repetition of an offence or a breach of the peace or to protect life or property.

That is, they can go in there if there is going to be a breach of the peace, if an offence is happening or to prevent the repetition of an offence. This is a much tougher test for police officers—people who are trained better than anyone else in using powers of entry—to apply before they go in and sort out a problem. All the union official has to do, according to this bill, is suspect on reasonable grounds. It is a much weaker, lower standard. I think a lot of people would probably scream if police just had to suspect on reasonable grounds that there might be a contravention of the act. No, the test is far higher for the police.

If you look at other pieces of legislation, you will see that is probably far higher, too, for a lot of other government officials. I mentioned in this place on a number of occasions that we need to be wary about giving untrained or semi-trained officials, be they government officials or anyone else, unfettered or very strong powers of entry, powers that really affect people’s human rights. In this bill, this government, and its Greens and Democrats allies, by the look of it, are giving untrained people, union representatives, a power of entry when they merely suspect on reasonable grounds that there is a contravention of the act.

Get real, Minister, really. Little wonder business is upset. Little wonder that business and a lot of reasonable people wonder where on earth are you coming from. You do not need this. This is trampling on people’s rights. You made a big noise about the Human Rights Act, and that is all very well, but I have noticed since that has come in—well, since it has been passed, as it does not apply until 1 July—you have conveniently forgotten it whenever you need to, sometimes for good reason. However, this is not a good reason at all. This is trampling on the rights that these employers, and anyone else there, would have in any other situation.

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