Page 3326 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 20 September 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Obviously, it is important in a society such as ours to ensure that our rights are well established. This government has placed considerable emphasis on individuals being able to protect their own rights. It is also important to ensure that the responsibilities of officers who have powers to administer, and laws to enforce, are clearly defined and that their obligations to ordinary citizens are very clearly identified under the legislation that is determined in this Assembly.
People do, on occasions, exploit the community’s gaps in knowledge of the law. We need to make sure the community is able to clearly identify people in positions of authority before complying with orders. From 11 years in the hospitality industry, I have had many examples and reports where people, when dealing with areas such as liquor licensing, have apparently had issues raised when employees were off duty, or in circumstances that have led to issues about the basis on which they may be enforcing laws. I think it is an area where governments of all persuasions need to be especially vigilant and ensure that identification is carried and always produced, to remove doubt. I think the amendment put forward by Mr Pratt is a commonsense amendment.
Mr Corbell: It is not!
MR MULCAHY: The minister says it is not, and we will be keen to hear why that is the case. If the response is simply that people are in uniform, then I am not sure that that is sufficient as far as experience would suggest. The Litter Act is obviously a very important measure in that it is a valuable device to ensure that the ACT’s public areas, shopping centres and parklands are well maintained, clean and available for all to enjoy. There has been much discussion in recent times. Some of it seems to have coincided with self-government, the end of the NCDC some years back, and the “faceless men” as they were irreverently referred to when I lived here in my earlier life. There has been a lot of suggestion that our city has deteriorated.
Mr Hargreaves: The faceless men of the Labor Party!
MR MULCAHY: No, I am not talking about the Labor Party’s faceless men; I am speaking, on this occasion, of the National Capital Development Commission that once existed. There were the faceless men of the Labor Party, but they are the subject of another chapter! I think this act does play an important part. Residents continually raise with me, anyway, the matter of graffiti and the state of our city. When I was at Kingston last week I was dismayed, when I started looking closely, at how many buildings had been vandalised with graffiti. There is certainly an argument for considering giving some additional powers to city rangers to enable them to impose on-the-spot fines to people who engage in this sort of antisocial activity. This is certainly marring the look of our city and is often a subject for comment by visitors to Canberra and also, more frequently, by residents. I especially hear a large number of complaints about the areas on Hindmarsh Drive through Weston Creek, towards Duffy and so forth. It has become an art form in that part of Canberra.
A secondary issue has been raised in Kingston that I will take this opportunity to flag. I am not sure if the minister is aware but I think we need to be a bit sensible in the manner in which we go about enforcing the Litter Act. For many years—indeed, in some cases, for 20 years—licensees in the Kingston area have stored empty kegs at the back
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .