Page 2781 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 August 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
been significantly increased during the debate. Mr Collaery got up and read a quote from Magistrate Dingwall's remarks in a recent case, and I will quote it again. Magistrate Dingwall was saying what this law is about. People, I think, are forgetting what this law is about in this debate. If the views of opposition members are the views of police officers, it really sends a chill up my spine. Magistrate Dingwall said:
The legislation is very specific in that it requires the police officer to have reasonable grounds of believing that a person has either engaged or is likely to engage in violent conduct in that place.
He indicated that violent conduct is defined to mean "violence to or intimidation of a person, or damage to property".
What are the circumstances that opposition members have lauded for this Bill, the circumstances where the Opposition says it is good to have this law? Mr Kaine gave the example of being at a bus station after hours and being annoyed, harassed or concerned about the conduct of some young people. If Mr Kaine thinks that the police have power to move on young people if they are annoyed, or harassed or concerned about the conduct of those young people, they are abusing the power.
The police have power to move a person on only if there is violent conduct, if there is a reasonable apprehension of violent conduct, and that does not amount to annoyance or mere harassment. He then mentioned acting in a boisterous manner. Are we saying that the police are using the move-on power when young people are acting in a boisterous manner?
Mr Jensen said that it is good to have a law that allows people to be moved on if there is harassment short of an offence that could cause alarm. Again, that is not what the law says; and, if that is how it is being applied, then it is being applied contrary to the law and in a manner that ought to cause us all concern.
We all know that in Canberra - as in the rest of Australia, as in the rest of the Western world, as in the rest of the Eastern world, indeed, everywhere - there is a sad, unfortunate increase in crimes of violence, crimes against property. The one statistic that showed that there has been a reduction in offences relates to offensive behaviour. They have dropped under this legislation. But offensive behaviour falls far short of the violent conduct that should be the proper trigger for this legislation to be used.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .