Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1887 ..
MR RUGENDYKE (4.39): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I think you will find that the majority of members will support this, given that it has been agreed generally in discussion that subclauses (3) and (4) ought to be kept. Some have been lost and some ought to be kept. In view of the discussions that we have all tried to have with each other, subclauses (3) and (4) ought to be kept. So I personally support this amendment to my proposed amendment.
Mr Kaine: So the net result is that subclauses (2), (5), (6) and (7) are deleted.
Mr Stefaniak: That is right. We keep (3) and (4).
MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Because the matter is being divided, we will deal with the subclauses seriatim.
Subclause 9 (2) negatived.
Subclause 9 (3).
MS TUCKER (4.46): Subclause (3) states:
A security officer may make a requirement under this section only if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to make the requirement in the interests of court security ...
We understand that this can refer to the search of a bag.
Mr Rugendyke: We won that one.
MS TUCKER: I am arguing that we should keep subclause (3).
Subclause 9 (3) agreed to.
Subclause 9 (4) agreed to.
Subclause 9 (5).
MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (4.48): Because security officers are searching bags, I think clause 9 (5) remains relevant and the Labor Party will support it.
MS TUCKER (4.48): I agree that this subclause should stay. It contains important criteria on how bags searches should be undertaken.
Subclause 9 (5) agreed to.
Subclauses 9 (6) and 9 (7), by leave, taken together.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .