Page 477 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 28 June 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I think the ACT Police and the Australian Federal Police are regarded as being amongst the best educated and the fairest and most respected in the country, and they have been for decades. They also have a large number of inbuilt systems to protect against abuses of power, starting with the police internal affairs division, then going to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and indeed you can have a two-pronged appeal to the internal affairs division and the Ombudsman. Those appeals can be anonymous, they are investigated, and I do not think anyone could possibly tell me the Ombudsman's office is not a fair and impartial body. There is also the court system itself, and the ACT courts do have a reputation, too, for scrupulously monitoring what the police do. Indeed, they probably have a reputation for going too far in protecting the rights of the defendant.
Certainly over the last ten years the courts have been very quick to jump at the slightest whiff of a misuse of any power by the police. They will come down on the police like a ton of bricks if there is any whiff of any improper behaviour. If that happens, of course, the police have a lot of disincentives there too, such as having to pay the costs of the defence actions for false imprisonment and of having to pay large money awards there, plus disciplinary action within their own force and possible dismissal.
There are a large number of counters in the system. There is one further counter, too - this Assembly - which I am sure would very closely monitor the progress of this legislation and could, if there were any abuses of power, repeal it very quickly.
This Government is prepared to fine a person $10,000 or gaol a person for five years for picking a protected plant but will not support a power to protect its own citizens and prevent louts from doing what they are doing to citizens of Canberra. Indeed, the penalty provisions suggested here are a mere $1,000 or imprisonment for three months. What kinds of priorities are these, Mr Speaker? This Bill is based on tried and proven South Australian legislation. South Australia, as the Chief Minister knows, is a very progressive State. Premier Dunstan changed more laws than probably any other State Premier, but he did not change his move-on powers, nor has the current Premier done so - and they are both members of the Chief Minister's party. Indeed, when Mr Collaery and I looked at this Bill, in sending instructions to the drafter we took out one offensive subsection that referred to breach of the peace, because that possibly could be used against political demonstrators. Indeed, some members today indicated to me that they would like a proviso that this could not be used for demonstrators, and I certainly have no objection if anyone wants to put that in this Bill. It is not aimed at demonstrators; it is aimed at protecting the community.
South Australian laws and cases have been used as a model in many recent ACT court cases. I realise that this Bill cannot be finalised today, and I also realise that many
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .