Page 2769 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEFANIAK (11.39), in reply: Firstly, I indicate, Mr Speaker, that Mr Collaery's proposed amendment is acceptable to me as the mover of this Bill. Whilst I would naturally prefer to see no sunset clause, I do not have any huge problem with this; nor does the Liberal Party. We will accept that when Mr Collaery moves it formally in the detail stage. I will not be long in summing up, Mr Speaker. We have had this debate ad infinitum over two years. We have had four police reports which have recommended the continuation of the move-on powers and there are probably certain things that any government would like to do to improve them from time to time.
I would like to say a couple of things in reply to what Mr Connolly has said. He has stated that this power brings young people into conflict with the police. I think Mr Jensen made a particularly good speech in relation to young people, as did Mr Humphries. Young people, because of their very nature, as Mr Humphries said, are boisterous. I was moved on as a young bloke. I am sure that most of us, if we are honest, admit that we probably got ourselves into a bit of trouble as young people. It is in the nature of young people to do so. So, street offences, unfortunately, tend to be a young persons type of offence, just like breaking and entering. It is pretty hard when you are 50 to break into a house by getting through a window or something like that. So, there are certain offences which tend to be committed by certain groups.
Young people will be brought much more into conflict with police and authorities, however, if they are charged with substantive offences like offensive behaviour, assault and malicious damage to property. There is a confrontation initially between them and the police. They are arrested; they are taken back to the police station; and they are in custody for a period of time. Then they are taken before the court. Invariably, they will be bailed or dealt with on the spot, should they plead guilty. Many, many hours are spent with a young person when in conflict with authority. It is far better, as I think Mr Jensen has quite rightly said, for a young person to be told, "Move on, go home, pull your head in" rather than end up in court for a substantive offence.
This power has worked very well; 2,060 people were moved on and only 19 were arrested for failing to move on. Only one person has complained in relation to that. I also am somewhat appalled that the Ombudsman has not finalised that complaint, but that has nothing to do with the police. The Ombudsman is a civilian and has nothing to do with the administration of this power. That is something that perhaps should be sorted out generally, as a principle, with the Ombudsman's office. With street offences, and such offences as resisting or assaulting police, it is almost standard operating procedure, from my experience, for the defendants to put in a complaint to the police internal investigation division and the Ombudsman. Almost invariably, too, those complaints are spurious and rejected
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .