Page 885 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 25 July 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Police in relation to street crime are limited to them acting only after a crime has been committed, rather than having the discretion to act in a preventive role. The Australian Federal Police and their association, together with the Victims of Crime Assistance League and the majority of individual submissions to the inquiry, very much supported what is colloquially known as the "move-on" power.
Perhaps I should briefly read the AFP's view and the report by the assistant commissioner, which states:
At the outset, let me say from the Australian Federal Police point of view that we believe that the move-on power is an important preventive tool which has the capacity to negate antisocial behaviour before it arises.
Many of the individual submissions the committee received commented on the fear and intimidation experienced as a result of the behaviour of other persons, either singly or in groups. There are other submissions and oral evidence, such as that from the Victims of Crime Assistance League, which referred to experiences of physical violence that, from the victim's point of view, could have been prevented by giving police the powers proposed in the Bill.
Current legislation was looked at. The committee certainly considered the question that police did not have sufficient powers to cover all situations and to carry out their normal and appropriate day-to-day activities. It became apparent to the committee during the consideration period that there were various views within the Canberra community regarding the provision of move-on powers. The question of civil liberties was raised by a number - perhaps the majority - of those providing evidence to the committee. The question of whose civil liberties were at risk was not easily answered by all of the witnesses. The committee accepted the genuine concerns expressed by many organisations who were worried about the effect of the proposed legislation on the young, the unemployed and the homeless.
The committee, after a lot of deliberation, recommended that the new Bill be amended to cover only crimes of violence, intimidation of a person, fighting in a public place, or damage to property. That is taken from recommendation 35(1) in appendix 4 at the back of the report, the majority report. The committee also recommended that the term "loitering" be replaced in the new Bill with "a direction to leave", and terms such as "leave the vicinity of the area".
Problems identified by those in favour of increasing police powers included swearing in public, drunkenness in public, impeding of way on footpaths, vandalism, harassment, particularly of women of all ages, and fighting in public. The Small Business Association was one organisation in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .