Page 3453 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 25 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Garema Place and Northbourne Avenue, which are the centres of the entertainment strip in Canberra, are both backed by alleyways which at night are fairly dimly lit. We have standard government streetlighting in the centre of those areas. That provides some lighting, but the walls of the private venues tend to be very much in shadow. I would like to talk with industry about working together to provide a more secure environment there. I would like to talk with industry about the way their private security resources - and we know that bouncers are employed at most of these venues - cooperate with police when there is a brawl or a fight. I have had reported to me instances of a fight going on for some time and no-one calling the police. That is an extraordinary position, but that seems to be the case. So, again I think we need to work with industry to ensure that there is a good cooperative attitude between them and the police.
There are a couple of points on which I must take issue with Mr Kaine. Overall his remarks were very balanced. He referred to some government initiatives. He mentioned the pushbike squad, which has been a very effective community policing initiative in the suburbs, less relevant perhaps in the city. A couple of points, I think written by an enthusiastic Liberal Party speech writer using a good bit of rhetoric, are a bit hard to reconcile with reality. Mr Kaine accused the Labor Party of consistently liberalising the laws in this area. I challenge him to find one point of the criminal law where this Government has repealed offences - - -
Mr Humphries: Marijuana.
MR CONNOLLY: No, we are talking about street offences; we are talking about violent offences. About eight years ago a substantial number of street offences were repealed in the ACT - the old public affray, vagrancy, public drunkenness offences. Everyone would accept that some of the offences - public drunkenness and particularly the vagrancy offence - were a problem. They were very much victimless crimes and had a potential for abuse. In recent days I have spoken with the police, and my officers have been in contact with the law office. We are preparing a paper on the possibility of reinstating some of the specific offences relating to fighting in a public place, because I believe that there is a problem in enforcing the law in the case of some of these brawls.
A police officer who comes across a group of youths fighting may lay a charge of assault. Assault is a serious charge under our criminal law. While an assault charge can be laid, there can sometimes be a problem in working out which of the two youths is assaulting the other. If neither youth wishes to proceed with a complaint against the other, which I am told is often the case, there can be some difficulties in making out assault charges before a magistrate. I think that it may be appropriate to look at reinstating the specific offence of fighting in a public place.
There is a point of difference between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party - and it has been argued repeatedly in this chamber - in relation to move-on powers. We have always said that we do not like arbitrary powers; that we believe that powers that are arbitrary and that give police a general power to move on a group of individuals are not conducive to good police-youth relationships. I also note that in some recent cases before magistrates in the ACT the magistrates have been fairly rigorous in applying the move-on test and some charges have in fact failed as a result of the broadness of the power.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .