Page 889 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 25 July 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
social problems identified. The time frame in which the committee was given to report was extremely short and the committee received a number of complaints to that effect. I believe the quality of submissions and the concerns expressed were such that the committee received a broad cross-section of community views. If the reporting time had been extended, the additional submissions received would mostly have repeated those basic concerns already submitted and considered.
Numerous community groups and individuals have shown concern with regard to the broad implications of the Bill in its original form. As a result, the committee has recommended that the scope of the Bill be narrowed down to four particular types of offences. I and others also have difficulty with the words "if the police officer has reasonable grounds for believing". My concern is whether police officers have, or will have, adequate training to use these discretionary powers. Will they be able to accurately guess what will happen in the future, predict other people's motives and predetermine the results of certain behaviour?
I also have concerns with regard to police misconduct and the abuse of those discretionary powers, especially in light of the evidence given by witnesses to the committee and of statements made in recent court hearings. As a result of these concerns, the committee at my suggestion has recommended that clause 2 of the Bill be amended.
In the original Bill, a police officer was able to move people on without asking why they were there or what they were doing. The amendment, as suggested in the submission from the ACT Law Reform Commission, will give people the opportunity to state their reasons for being in a particular place at a particular time.
The committee has also recommended that if the Bill is passed it should contain a two-year sunset clause so that the Assembly may monitor the manner in which the law is being applied during that time. This includes monitoring the number of arrests and complaints associated with the legislation. A two-year period has been suggested by the Ombudsman as the time in which some cases - presuming there are cases - will be fully investigated and finalised. I should point out that in many of the submissions received the general conduct of the Australian Federal Police was praised.
With regard to section 2.11 of the committee's report, written and verbal submissions were received from VOCAL - Victims of Crimes Assistance League - and persons with similar experiences. They stated that crimes against themselves and others could have been prevented if the police had possessed move-on powers. I beg to differ. Many of those crimes would have still been committed whether the police had had move-on powers or not, because at the time of the offence the police were not in the vicinity.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .