Page 3083 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 15 September 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
They know who I am, and it is more than likely that they will beat up my two younger brothers". Nothing was said about the used condoms and syringes lying about at the Woden interchange. People who wait there minding their own business, wanting to catch a bus, should not be subjected to these sorts of things. Nothing was said about the person who worked at the Tuggeranong bus interchange and who was beaten up recently by a gang of youths called the Bombers, a gang with people of a certain ethnic background.
Mr Connolly did not say any of that. He did say that these move-on powers have had no impact. There is no logic in that. I suggest to Mr Connolly that the fact that police have had move-on powers of recent times has prevented many more crimes than have in fact occurred. Mr Connolly gave some figures and suggested that there was no problem at the Belconnen bus interchange. Perhaps he did not listen to the many people who rang up talkback radio programs, to the many people who have spoken to members of the Opposition and, I am sure, to other members of this house and who said quite the reverse. They specifically said that they were accosted, sworn at, abused, punched or had something happen to them at some place around Canberra or that they knew someone who had been subjected to this treatment.
Mr Connolly did not mention any of that. He did say, though, that he prefers to make sure that police react after an offence has occurred. That is fine. But what do you say to someone who has just been punched in the head for purely and simply refusing to give somebody a cigarette at a bus interchange? You can say that you are terribly sorry. You can say what you will do if you happen to catch the person responsible. Half the time the police know the gangs that tend to congregate at these places. That is where police move-on powers are at their most effective. The police know the people who are likely to cause trouble. If Mr Connolly spoke to the policemen instead of quoting statistics, he would also know that the police force, which is the best police force in the country - there is no doubt about that - would prefer to have the move-on powers because they believe that those powers have prevented many crimes from occurring. That is what Mr Connolly did not say.
Mr Connolly also did not say what the community wants and what the community is saying. As I said before, Mr Deputy Speaker, the community is saying very loud and clear, "We have no objections to the police move-on powers". We have not had our doors beaten down by members of the public saying, "Civil liberties, civil libertarians; no police move-on powers". I am suggesting that the opposite is in fact the truth. But we heard nothing from Mr Connolly about what the community wants either. Mr Connolly, in an incredible five minutes of absolute rubbish, talked about Sir Robert Menzies. Sir Robert Menzies - God bless his soul - does not live in Tuggeranong and had very little to do with Canberra over the past 20 years. Mr Connolly should not be reading what Sir Robert Menzies had to say; he should be listening to what the community in Canberra are saying. Mr Connolly also talked about the Northern Territory and South Australia and the difference between move-on powers and loitering charges. I do not care what is happening in the Northern Territory or in South Australia. I am more prepared to listen to what the community in the ACT is telling me. Mr Connolly said nothing about prevention; he restricted his comments to what happens after an offence is committed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .