Page 4715 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 28 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I also went on to point out that if there was even one example of this power being abused we would move to remove it. I will give just one more quote, Mr Speaker, before I wind up. I said:
It should be understood that we perceive this as being on a trial basis, as filling a gap ...
We have had the trial, and now it is time for the move-on powers to be removed.
MR STEVENSON (11.50): Mr Speaker, I would like to look at why the original Bill was introduced. It was introduced because of a perception by people in Canberra that there was a problem with a certain number of youths causing offensive behaviour. The police did not have a problem; the people of Canberra had a problem. The police are merely public servants. They follow the law and seek to make this Territory a safe place for people. So, it is important to see, firstly, that it was a problem of the community of Canberra.
I think it is worthwhile to look at the brief history of this sort of problem in Australia. I think we all know that in the past police had a greater respect from youths. In the old days when police told young people to move on or gave them a caution, in the vast majority of cases they would follow that caution. It is unfortunate that in our society, in which many young people have been taught not to respect authority, not to respect the police, and have been taught rights without responsibilities, police are all too often ignored in their requests on behalf of the civilian population.
The result in the street is that a policeman or a number of policemen can be confronted by a group which may consist of dozens of people who are causing problems. At that time, the police have a choice in the current situation - they can ignore the problem or arrest somebody. It is unfortunate that the cautionary power that was once effective for police, which did not require the weight of law but which simply required the weight of authority, of respect for the law, is no longer enough.
Police have the choice - they can ignore the problem which will not go away or they can charge somebody. The statistics for offensive behaviour show that in many cases they would charge somebody. Since the introduction of the move-on power Bill they quite often use the power to move on, and it is shown that 30 per cent fewer cases of offensive behaviour are now charged. The police need to have a reason for making any charge within law. These things are not arbitrarily done; there should be a reason. So it is the case with the move-on power; police should have a reason before they use that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .