Page 1118 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 20 March 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In summary, the Government has brought in quite a number of useful measures. Mr Berry has today pushed the Government further by bringing to this house a Bill to reflect the concept of a proclaimed place which, of course, the Government has already endorsed. I want to say that I do not question Mr Berry's motives in bringing forward that Bill. If there had been some contact between Mr Berry and me, I could have advised him. I was about to write to him. In fact, I am reading from a draft letter that I was about to send Mr Berry. It was delayed because I understand Mr Berry wrote to the police in December. I do not believe that I received a copy of that letter at the same time from Mr Berry. I have only just connected with it.
The police would prefer - and this may aid the debate on Mr Berry's Bill - intoxicated persons to be processed in a manner similar to current AFP procedures pertaining to persons taken into protective custody. This procedure will help to identify habitual visitors and to identify persons in need of detoxification. The police welcome the initiative but also wish to see that medical assistance is available and that inmates are regularly monitored. That, of course, will concern us all, having regard to the Aboriginal deaths in custody syndrome, if I can use that expression. The police are also keen for inmates not to be released whilst they are under the influence of alcohol, and that a minimum detention time should be set. I believe that Mr Berry has said eight hours.
Mr Berry: Or less.
MR COLLAERY: Or less. The police would also prefer that inmates be released to a responsible adult. That reflects, of course, the high level of alcohol dependency already in the youth age bracket. The police also are anxious that the facility does cater for both males and females, and separately, perhaps, for young persons. The police have also advised me that some distinction should be made as to the kind of person who may be detained. For example, it would need to be determined whether the following persons are allowed to stay, even voluntarily, at a proclaimed place - which is another issue that we need to debate when Mr Berry's Bill comes forward: Those under the influence of drugs or inhalants; those liable to cause a disturbance at the place; very vocal and rowdy people; habitual drunks; and walk in off the street drunks who are just looking for a bed, who have not accessed our other services and who should really be pushed up towards Ainslie Hostel, for example.
I welcome the initiative taken by Mr Berry. He is chiding the Government and wanting us to move forward with that proposal. I assure him that we are in the process of developing that in the context of those other services. I am now advised that Mr Berry's Bill was drawn by the legislative drafting service of the Law Office, and that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .