Page 1209 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 24 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The other enactment we are considering is the Crimes (Amendment) Bill (No. 2). As I read the provisions of this Bill, it struck me that we have in this Assembly a very strange, almost schizophrenic attitude towards the police. It was not so long ago - I think it was in the last Assembly - that we considered an extension of the move-on powers legislation. We debated at great length, and with great heartburn and heart-rending statements, the question of whether we should give a policeman the power to move on somebody who had the potential to commit a crime, a person who might be a potential law-breaker.
In the end, we felt that the police should have the power to move that person on, although those opposite, members of the Labor Party, voted against that. They felt that it was too much of a responsibility, too great a risk, to allow a policeman the capacity to take that kind of attitude towards citizens of the Territory. Similarly, earlier today, we declined to give the Commissioner of Police the power to grant extensions of more than 56 days in respect of motor traffic offences. We really felt that police should be kept in their place on those sorts of things.
But here, in the Crimes (Amendment) Bill (No. 2), we are saying that on the suspicion that a domestic violence incident might be about to take place or has taken place, a policeman is entitled to enter premises or surrounding grounds of those premises or a motor vehicle under the control of a person who ordinarily lives on those premises or is apparently connected with the circumstances giving rise to the entry of the police officers onto the premises, and then to engage in a number of activities, including searches, and to seize particular things, namely, weapons.
A weapon may be seized by a police officer, despite the fact that the owner of the weapon is unknown and irrespective of whether the owner of the weapon is connected with the circumstances giving rise to the entry of the police officer onto the premises of that person. A police officer can effectively hold the weapon or weapons for 60 days. We seem to feel that in these circumstances, where the police are on the side of the good guys, to use a figure of speech, wide powers are entirely justified. Yet, when it comes to other circumstances, the police getting wide powers is a no-no.
I am sure that the Attorney-General has some rational explanation as to why we take such widely differing views about this, but it would appear to a casual observer that we are not being particularly consistent about these sorts of things. In some circumstances the police have very wide powers to deal with the commission of crime and to prevent the commission of crime; in others we feel compelled to restrict those powers.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (4.43), in reply: I thank members for their contributions. Both Mrs Carnell and Ms Szuty said that the seizure of weapons provision was a good move, but there may be more to be done and more areas to be looked at. I basically agree with that. Members should recall that these Bills are Bills that are part of the output of the Community Law Reform Committee. We are establishing a tradition in this Assembly whereby that committee brings to this Assembly Bills already drafted for our consideration. In most cases they follow a substantive report.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .