Page 1190 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 22 August 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
move-on power. I would think that not all areas, but certainly the main areas, have been addressed. So the Bill is workable, and the Australian Federal Police indeed believe that that is the case. It is not ideal, Mr Speaker, but perhaps we can get to that in the detail stage.
Mr Speaker, I would point out now, in relation to section 25(3), that that may not any longer be necessary. That is a result of the new definition of what is required; that is, the violent conduct aspect, the crimes of violence, fighting in a public place, intimidation and damage to property. Indeed, it has been suggested to me by the Legislative Counsel that perhaps that is something the Assembly may wish to look at because, in their view, subsection (3) is not necessary, although certainly the rationale for putting it in the original Bill was quite sound.
But I am assured by the drafters that there is no chance of this Bill, even without subsection (3), being used for demonstrations and pickets. Again that is something that people might like to think about later on during the detail stage. Mr Speaker, as I believe my colleagues on the committee, Mr Collaery and Ms Maher, have been advised by the Legislative Counsel as well, there is a problem with the 24 hours that may well need to be addressed, and that would mean that subsections (4) and (5), and the definitions of "community service" and "Crimes Act" should be deleted, because the 24 hours community service should be as an alternative to a term of imprisonment and not as a completely fresh penalty standing all by itself.
The whole rationale of community service is for it to be an alternative to imprisonment in any legislation and not something that does stand by itself where a term of imprisonment is not envisaged for the legislation. That, in reality, does cause only a minor problem, which can be addressed by those matters being deleted.
Having gone through those explanations, Mr Speaker, I would indicate that I rarely agree with the Canberra Times but I would just like to make a couple of points in relation to that. In their second editorial, which although less unfavourable to this Bill than their second-last one, and getting back perhaps a little bit towards their first one in April, which was very much in favour of move-on powers, they do say that powers such as this are hard to see as a miracle cure. I would tend to agree with that, because I do not think anything is a miracle cure, but a move-on power is a very great help in preventive policing and a very great help in cleaning up a number of criminal problems that Canberra has experienced in recent years. It is a commonsense power and is something the community obviously is very much in favour of.
I am not surprised perhaps by the editorial several weeks ago against this Bill. The editors of the Canberra Times, Mr Waterford and Mr Hull, I have known since university days and certainly their attitudes do not necessarily surprise me
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .