Page 3080 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 15 September 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We are in favour of a law-abiding, safe community where the police have appropriate powers to deal with criminal behaviour, not powers to deal with apprehended criminal behaviour, not preventive police powers, not requirements to produce identity passes, not preventive detention.
We believe that the police should have appropriate powers to deal with crime. That is why last year we introduced the law on streetfighting. We swiftly modified the criminal law when we were advised by police that there were flaws in the existing criminal law. The police, it is no secret, always support extensions to their powers, as any group would. But it is the role, duty and responsibility of a responsible government to balance the demands of the police for ever increasing powers with the interests of the broader community.
I have been advised by two agencies. I have been advised by my law office that these are bad and arbitrary powers and should not be extended, and I have been advised by my police that they would like them extended. Whatever I do, Mr Humphries, I am disregarding one agency's advice. It is the role of government, it is the role of Ministers and it is the role of members to make up their own minds on this issue, not to say that because the police have requested an increase in power they should be granted it.
Our interest is in good relations between the police and the community. We believe that the move-on powers only have the potential to damage those relationships, and it is clear from the community surveys that the area that we have to deal rather more carefully and rather more constructively with is relationships between Canberra's police and Canberra's young people. The other area where we have a problem is in relationships between Canberra's police and Canberra's ethnic community. I suspect that many members of Canberra's ethnic community are not going to be happy at the prospect of pass laws and papers laws being introduced in the ACT, because that would be - - -
Mrs Carnell: I did not know that we had a pass law.
MR CONNOLLY: We do not yet, but Mr Humphries has just introduced one. That will bring back some fairly frightening memories of the sorts of police forces that many members of our Australian community had to deal with in other parts of the world. We believe that it is the responsibility of a government to balance the rights of citizens to go about their lawful business without let or hindrance with the need to give police powers to deal with crime. We support giving the police powers to deal with crime, not with apprehended or possible crime. That is a very slippery slope, Mr Humphries, which leads you inexorably down the road to what can be described as a police state - and we will not have that in this Territory.
MS SZUTY (11.13): I trust that there will be more speakers on this very important issue this morning. Madam Speaker, I have stated publicly that in principle I oppose the police move-on powers. My first knowledge and experience of their use occurred during the years I was director at Weston Creek Community Service and I heard much about their application from young people who were in contact with our youth program. The move-on powers became a reality in 1989 and, although an attempt to repeal them in 1990 failed, as the Attorney-General has described, the community at large, while not accepting of move-on powers in some instances, effectively seemed to live with them.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .