Page 887 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 25 July 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
circulated to all members of this Assembly proposed amendments to that Act on which I would like their comments within the next few days or so, if possible.
We also had the advantage of securing the views, through the Chief Minister, of the President of the Law Reform Commission of Australia and the local criminal consultative committee. Those views were looked at. Some further recommendations were arrived at. One was that the new Police Offences (Amendment) Act, in the form recommended by the committee, have a sunset clause of two years.
The committee also recommended that a committee be formed to monitor, at six-month intervals, the effect of the legislation and prior to the cessation of section 35 of the Police Offences Act the need for the sunset provision to be re-examined. It was suggested by the committee that membership should be the members of the current committee. The matters to be monitored include the number of arrests for failing to leave an area as directed by a police officer and the number of complaints to both IID and the Ombudsman regarding any abuse of the complaints.
I should add, of course, that no witness, during the course of the committee hearing, gave any evidence of any actual complaints of abuse of legislation of this type in Canberra when it had been operating prior to 1987. Of course, there were other complaints in relation to other abuses which have been detailed in the report. Two witnesses gave evidence in relation to other matters where they alleged abuse of powers by police.
A number of other recommendations were made in relation to community education programs and areas ancillary to public behaviour. The potential for misuse and abuse was very much in the minds of the committee, and committee members looked long and hard at that and various allegations and suggestions.
The committee was also fortunate to have the Ombudsman, Professor Pearce, appear. He and his staff gave a detailed expose of instances and results of alleged abuse by police in relation to other legislation. They indicated there had been no increase in the allegations of abuse and provided some statistics in relation to the Ombudsman's clear-up rate. The Ombudsman also indicated that they have a very good relationship with the police internal affairs division. He explained to the committee how that division operated and how the Ombudsman's office operates as a check to any abuses of power in the area of policing.
The committee looked at penalties. One of the criticisms of this Bill - I personally feel it is a misguided criticism - was the question of penalties. The Bill, as proposed by me, contained the penalty as applicable in the South Australian legislation, a paltry $1,000 or imprisonment for three months being the maximum penalty. However, the majority of the committee felt that that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .