Page 3229 - Week 10 - Thursday, 25 September 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
satisfied, based on either belief or suspicion that an offence has been or is likely to be committed, is appropriate.
The committee asked why the existing general law protections are not sufficient to protect the interests of venue operators, and whether there is sufficient justification for displacement of limitations to the “power of state authorities to interfere with the privacy and bodily integrity of citizens by means of stop and search powers”.
I would reiterate that the government recognises that the crowd management powers in the bill limit important human rights. As identified by the committee, these issues have been addressed in the explanatory statement. It remains the government’s view that these powers are proportionate and necessary to provide for the safe and effective hosting of major events.
As I stated in my response to the committee, major events as envisaged in the bill occur in a very different environment. When major events go badly wrong, consequences can be catastrophic. Members can probably recall international major events that have gone badly. Major events are unlike everyday events in terms of their scale, and tighter security measures are required to ensure that members of the community attending these events can do so safely and comfortable in the knowledge that the event is secure.
Turning to the amendments themselves, I will just briefly address a range of them. Amendment 1 makes changes to provide further grounds on which the executive must be satisfied in order to declare a major event. The amendment requires the executive to be satisfied on reasonable grounds that a major event declaration is necessary and appropriate.
Therefore this amendment provides a higher threshold for declaring a major event, and amendment 3, which I will speak to further shortly, applies the same threshold for varying such a declaration. This provides further support for human rights by ensuring that any limitation on rights as a result of an event being declared to be a major event, or any variation to such a declaration, will be necessary, appropriate and reasonable.
Turning to amendment No 2, this provides that, in order to state that for a major event a specified item is a prohibited item, the executive must consider not only that such a prohibition is reasonable in the circumstances but also that the item could be used to interfere with the event or be a risk to public safety.
Turning to amendment 3, this applies to variations to major event declarations. It provides that a minister must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that a major event declaration variation is necessary and appropriate for the good management of the event or the safety and enjoyment of people at the event. This amendment is consistent with amendment 1, which applies to the original declaration decision for a major event.
Turning to amendment No 4, this amendment provides that any variations made to a major event declaration must be in the form of a disallowable instrument. This will ensure that any variations that are made by the minister are able to be considered by the Assembly and, if deemed appropriate, disallowed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video