Independent Senators happy with changes in new bill

KAY-MARIE FLETCH­ER

Se­nior Re­porter

kay-marie.fletch­[email protected]

Two In­de­pen­dent sen­a­tors have ac­knowl­edged im­prove­ments in the Gov­ern­ment’s pro­posed Spe­cial Op­er­a­tions Bill com­pared with the de­feat­ed Zones of Spe­cial Op­er­a­tions (ZOSO) leg­is­la­tion, but say con­cerns re­main over sev­er­al key pro­vi­sions.

In­de­pen­dent Sen­a­tor Michael Si­mon Vic­tor de la Bastide yes­ter­day raised con­cerns about claus­es gov­ern­ing cur­fews and cor­dons with­in des­ig­nat­ed closed ar­eas.

Speak­ing with Guardian Me­dia out­side Par­lia­ment, de la Bastide said some of the is­sues high­light­ed by the In­de­pen­dent Bench dur­ing de­bate on the ZOSO Bill ear­li­er this year ap­pear to have been ad­dressed. He al­so wel­comed the in­clu­sion of a sun­set clause, which he had pre­vi­ous­ly ad­vo­cat­ed for.

How­ev­er, he said changes re­lat­ing to cur­fews and cor­dons re­main trou­bling.

“On the last oc­ca­sion, the pow­er to make a cor­don, the pow­er to im­pose a cur­few, were lim­it­ed to a cer­tain pe­ri­od of time. That lim­i­ta­tion has gone,” de la Bastide said.

“And then, from the bill that I’ve read, which could be amend­ed be­fore it comes to the Sen­ate, as soon as an area is de­clared a closed area, you have to get per­mis­sion to leave or to en­ter. And the cor­don is re­al­ly lit­tle ar­eas with­in that. It seems that you have to get per­mis­sion to leave the cor­don area. So those are things that con­cern me great­ly.”

Un­der the pre­vi­ous ZOSO Bill, a cor­don could re­main in place for no more than 24 hours, while a cur­few was lim­it­ed to 72 hours. Those spe­cif­ic re­stric­tions do not ap­pear in the new leg­is­la­tion.

De la Bastide said he would like to see some form of ju­di­cial over­sight gov­ern­ing the ex­er­cise of pow­ers re­lat­ed to cur­fews and cor­dons, as well as lim­its on the length of time an area can re­main closed.

He al­so ex­pressed con­cern about the ad­min­is­tra­tion of the pro­posed law and the po­ten­tial for abuse of its pow­ers.

“These are SoE-type pow­ers, not as broad, but one has to trust that the Gov­ern­ment, that these pow­ers will not be abused. And there­fore one has to look at the record of the Gov­ern­ment with re­spect to how the SoE pow­ers un­der the State of Emer­gency have been ex­er­cised, and con­sid­er, giv­en how those pow­ers have been ex­er­cised, whether this Gov­ern­ment should be trust­ed,” he said.

De­spite those reser­va­tions, de la Bastide said he has not yet de­cid­ed whether he will sup­port the leg­is­la­tion when it comes be­fore the Sen­ate. He said the de­ci­sion re­quires bal­anc­ing con­cerns about civ­il lib­er­ties against the need to ad­dress the coun­try’s crime prob­lem.

“I’m a lit­tle hes­i­tant to give you an an­swer, well, yes, I’ll sup­port it or not, be­cause it’s a bal­anc­ing act,” he said.

Mean­while, In­de­pen­dent Sen­a­tor Court­ney Mc­Nish, who ab­stained when the ZOSO Bill was vot­ed on in the Sen­ate in Jan­u­ary, said he too was en­cour­aged to see that some of the amend­ments he had pro­posed were in­cor­po­rat­ed in­to the new leg­is­la­tion.

How­ev­er, he ex­pressed con­cern that pro­vi­sions deal­ing with so­cial and com­mu­ni­ty de­vel­op­ment, which formed part of the pre­vi­ous ZOSO Bill, were omit­ted.

Speak­ing out­side Par­lia­ment, Mc­Nish said, “I’m hap­py at least that I’ve seen some of the amend­ments I want­ed. I’m a lit­tle more con­cerned by the so­cial de­vel­op­ment parts of the bill that was in the pre­vi­ous bill that has been left out. I am not sure why, but we will get there and we’ll have that dis­cus­sion.”

Asked whether the new bill was prefer­able to ei­ther a State of Emer­gency or the for­mer ZOSO leg­is­la­tion, Mc­Nish said it was.

“To me, it is bet­ter than the pre­vi­ous bill, save and ex­cept the so­cial de­vel­op­ment and the com­mu­ni­ty de­vel­op­ment parts of it. And is it bet­ter than the State of Emer­gency? I think it is,” he said.

The pre­vi­ous ZOSO Bill was de­feat­ed in the Sen­ate in Jan­u­ary by a vote of 15 in favour, 14 against and one ab­sten­tion. Mc­Nish cast the lone ab­sten­tion.