Page 4712 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 28 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
bipartisan approach is standard procedure for Mr Collaery. But it is not acceptable to this side of the house; nor is it acceptable to people in Canberra. The process must be opened up so that people know what is going on, so that it is not a fait accompli when Mr Collaery announces what the situation is going to be for the funding and use of our police force over the next year. It is anything but a method of getting a bipartisan approach to this sort of matter. I see Mr Collaery and the Chief Minister leaving now, too embarrassed about the situation and wondering how they should deal with it now that they have knocked back that proposal for a select committee and have not yet come up with any reasonable alternative proposal.
The relationship between the police and, in particular, the young people who are primarily affected by the move-on powers has the effect of a reverse onus of proof - not in a court sense where the reverse onus of proof applies to legislation, but in a personal sense. The police are saying, "You are in effect guilty. Therefore you have to go". The effect is to reverse the onus of proof, whereas Mr Connolly's solution, in which specific legislation is alluded to and a caution is provided, indicates quite clearly that the person is in the act of committing, or appears to be about to commit, an offence; therefore a caution is quite appropriate. At that stage, the relationship between the younger people in our community and the police, in regard to which the greatest difficulty exists, is built up. It is a relationship that we should be building on, not one that needs to have any damage done to it.
It is with those few words that I support this Bill that has been introduced by Mr Wood. I hope that the Alliance Government can see the sense in supporting it and removing those police move-on powers.
MRS NOLAN (11.42): At the outset I remind Mr Moore that on 24 August 1989, at page 1309 of Hansard, he supported the previous amendment Bill. The words were:
I am quite pleased to support the Bill and the way it has now been ...
I will come back to that a little later, if I may. I would like to acknowledge the presence of VOCAL members in the gallery. I believe that the members of the Victims of Crime Assistance League are very concerned about the introduction of this Bill. I know that they are not the only ones who are concerned about it; I am sure that many other people in the community and the police also are concerned, because I believe that the additional power that the Police Offences (Amendment) Act 1989 gave the police has been of assistance to the police in performing their duty and protecting our community. One wishes that there was no need for an organisation such as VOCAL, but the reality is that crime and violence are prevalent in our community.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .