Page 2777 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I will support the amendment moved by Mr Collaery; but, like the Residents Rally, I have come very tentatively to this position. I still feel, as I felt in August 1989, that it should be understood that we perceive this as a trial, as filling a gap. But let me give a warning: If we hear of even one police officer abusing this power we will move as quickly as possible, at the very next sitting, to remove the Bill.
I was approached this morning by Mr Paul Whalan, who commented that the Ombudsman's office contacted his son last night. The timing is a very strange coincidence. I have verified this with Mr Whalan and contacted, with him, the Ombudsman's office. Of course, the Ombudsman would not be prepared to give the information to me personally. I was there while Mr Whalan was making the phone call and was able to verify that the preliminary view of the Ombudsman now is that the arrest of Bernard Whalan under the police move-on powers was in fact an illegal arrest. That is their preliminary view. They have sent for a formal legal opinion from the Australian Government Solicitor and are waiting to see whether that is confirmed. If that is confirmed, there will be an appropriate issue to pursue in terms of compensation. In other words, the move-on powers will have been misused. That has not been verified yet. Because it has not been verified, I will support this Bill and this amendment.
I think it is important to note, when we are dealing with a balance in civil liberties, the anguish that someone who has been wrongly arrested goes through. We are aware of the circumstances, of course, because Mr Whalan has been very involved in this Assembly and he is a very effective and professional lobbyist. One cannot help wondering how many other people have been put through a circumstance where an arrest has been almost accepted and have said, "Well, that was unlucky"; yet they could well have been wrongly arrested. What we are dealing with here is this delicate balance - I think Mr Jensen put it this way earlier - between civil liberties and the police power. Most of us are trying to find just what that balance is. The Assembly as a whole rejected the original Bill from Mr Stefaniak because that balance was way out of kilter.
A modified Bill came forth as a result of the Select Committee on the Police Offences (Amendment) Bill 1989 and that modified view has brought us much closer to a version that may be acceptable to the community. That view will continue after today. But, as the information becomes clearer, it may well be necessary for me to reconsider this view and to bring legislation back to the Assembly. The Residents Rally have just indicated that they would be prepared to do the same. With such effective use of police move-on powers for two years, I think it would take more than just one incident for me now to change my mind; but one incident may be enough for us to try to determine what else has happened with these police move-on powers.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .