Page 2757 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
reduce the number of people arrested for urinating in a public place and in respect of other charges. I have maintained since I have been in this place that I want to see statistics that may justify the perception I have. I have still not seen clear statistics from the police that suggest that there has been a drop in charges of that nature. I was briefed, as Attorney at the time, that there had been a drop in those charges.
I take the view that we must resolve this Bill on the balance of interest to the community. Mr Connolly kindly made the latest police brief available to members and that shows that 2,006 persons have been moved on, with 19 arrests and 15 convictions. Mr Connolly also acknowledged that there are move-on powers in South Australia, which is, by all accounts and by all admissions made by Mr Connolly, an enlightened jurisdiction, and they are used in the Northern Territory. I withhold judgment on how we regard that jurisdiction.
The view that Mr Connolly puts to us is that the power is capable of misuse. He does not provide evidence of misuse of the power. I had occasion to be approached by a senior member of the Residents Rally over the detention of her grand-daughter in Manuka following an incident outside Bad Habits Night Club on 7 October 1990. Charges against those young persons were, to my knowledge, eventually dismissed. Mr Connolly can be assured that interest in the move-ons is not in the province only of the Australian Labor Party. I, towards the end of my time as Attorney, wrote a frustrated letter to the Assistant Commissioner of Police saying, "I never find out what happens in these cases".
I will read you the end of the brief that I received as Attorney on 17 October 1990 in respect of the Bad Habits incident. The final paragraph is:
Because the matter is both before the courts, and subject to the secrecy provisions of the Complaints Act, I am not in a position to provide further comment at this stage.
The complaints Act is a Federal piece of legislation - the Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act 1981 - and there is a secrecy provision at section 87 of that Act. It does purport to stop a police person or a person apprised of information in respect of a complaint against a police officer divulging information. But I found it extraordinary that the Australian Federal Police would quote that section back at the Minister. Had I remained Attorney for a short time longer, that issue certainly would have come to a head. It would have come to a head, firstly, under the discussions on the arrangement between this Territory and the Federal Government for policing. The Minister referred to in the Federal Act is naturally the Federal Minister, and the status of a Territory Minister is unclear. We are - and let us be frank about it - a passenger, to some extent, in this matter.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .