Page 2759 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
experience, the limits of their power. Magistrate Dingwall is to be congratulated for setting out clearly, I thought, for the first time what the community's perception of the police role should be. You have here a clear indication from the magistrate that he will not allow these offences to be proven if it is in respect of behaviour described as "anti-social".
I am in the position that we reached last night in the fluoride debate. My colleague Dr Kinloch asked the classic philosophical question, "What is the best balance in a circumstance?". I can accept the ideological persuasion of the Labor Party. I can accept that the experience is close to the Labor Party because of the great labour struggles of this century when police powers were used arbitrarily, often in terms of industrial disturbances. But, as this house well knows, those powers will not and cannot be used in that circumstance. I am pleased that the debate has not spread to that issue any more. Mr Speaker, the Rally is prepared to support a further sunset provision, and I move the amendment circulated in my name.
Mr Stefaniak: That is an acceptable amendment, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: We will wait until the detail stage, if you do not mind, Mr Collaery.
MR HUMPHRIES (11.06): Mr Speaker, I rise to support the Bill moved by Mr Stefaniak. It has my full support, as indeed did the Police Offences (Amendment) Bill when first introduced in the Assembly some two years ago. I detect on the part of the Labor Party an ideological mind-set in this matter. They were opposed to the move-on powers at their inception; they remain opposed. They are not interested in the events - - -
Mr Wood: We have been fairly consistent, you reckon.
MR HUMPHRIES: Well, that may be. Mr Wood says that they have been consistent about it.
Mr Kaine: Consistently wrong.
MR HUMPHRIES: Consistently wrong, perhaps. They forget that the spirit in which this Bill was introduced and passed in the Assembly was that we should see how it works. I think it is pretty clear, considering the reports of the police on this matter and considering the experience that ordinary citizens have had for the most part with these powers, that the powers have worked. They have been successful. I have not seen any tangible evidence come forward from those benches opposite to indicate ways in which the powers have not worked. The objection is: "In principle we do not like the powers; in principle we do not like the idea of police being able to move somebody on if they suspect that a crime might be committed".
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .