Page 3082 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 15 September 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The sunset clause came up for review in 1991 and, following lengthy debate, was extended for a further two years, to expire on 5 September 1993. And so we come to the tabling of Mr Humphries's Bill during the August sittings. It was at that time that I sought to read the earlier Hansard debates and to talk to a number of the key players involved, to further inform myself and confirm or otherwise my earlier reaction some years ago to the move-on powers issue.
I spoke with representatives of the Police Association and VOCAL, who were in favour of the retention of the police move-on powers; and I spoke with representatives from the Trades and Labour Council, the Welfare Rights and Legal Centre and a private citizen, who were opposed to their retention and would have been happy to see them lapse. My view at that time was to take advantage of the Community Law Reform Committee's current reference on public assemblies and street offences to extend the move-on powers for a further six months to enable the committee to complete its inquiry and report to the Government. However, Mr Humphries's Bill at that time was not debated; so the amendment I had drafted at that time was not proposed either.
In the meantime, the move-on powers have lapsed; so the status quo for the time being is that there are no move-on powers. It is in this context that I have decided not to proceed with my earlier course of action of proposing an amendment to extend the time for their application. However, I am overwhelmingly convinced, both on the basis of the debates of the Assembly and as a result of the discussions I have had with the key people I mentioned earlier, that extensive community debate about the issue needs to occur and that members of the community need to be as informed as we ourselves are as to the options and strategies available to the police to deal with potentially inflammatory situations.
I believe that this debate can still take place in the context of the Community Law Reform Committee's broader inquiry into public assemblies and street offences, and I would urge all interested people to participate in the process in that forum. I believe that the committee is due to publish a discussion paper in October calling for community input, with the inquiry due to be finalised in about six months' time. Mr Deputy Speaker, the use of police move-on powers has been a vexed issue since the onset of self-government, and I have no wish or desire to see it remain so. What is needed is an extensive and comprehensive assessment of the issues involved, which hopefully will generate a cohesive community response. My personal preference still remains for improved community policing strategies to be implemented in lieu of the move-on powers provision. However, I will be happy to reconsider the issue in the light of the Community Law Reform Committee's report in 1994 on the basis of what I hope will be considerable community input and comment on the issue.
MR DE DOMENICO (11.20): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to support the move by Mr Humphries. Mr Connolly made some interesting comments. He referred to move-on powers as being extraordinary. He used the word "extraordinary" as if it implied some sort of police state. Mr Connolly also took up the cudgels as the great civil libertarian, but he did not mention some of the victims. Nothing was said about the young man who was beaten up by a gang of youths at the Civic bus interchange recently. This young man said to his mother, "I am not even going to report these people to the police. I know who they are.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .