Page 3086 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 15 September 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I suggest that, whenever any matter like this is being looked at, we should look at the effects. Different members have suggested that horrendous problems are caused by having the move-on power. Mr Connolly said that thousands and thousands of Canberrans have been moved on, although I note that he did not respond to the cry across the chamber, "Where is the evidence?". Others have put the idea that there is no problem whatsoever. I think there is an element of truth in both sides.
I voted for this move-on power originally not because I had been a police officer but because a large majority of people in the community supported it. There has been no call from the community since that time. As we know, there has been very little overall publicity on this matter since that time.
Mr Berry: Yes, but you voted for legislation with a sunset clause.
MR STEVENSON: I understand that. I also noted with interest Mr Connolly's stand against preventive policing. I do not misinterpret that. Obviously, we are involved in preventive policing, but not anything like having a television camera in everybody's home to make sure that nobody does anything wrong. Have Mr Connolly and his Labor colleagues ever agreed with preventive policing? I know that Mr Connolly firmly agrees with law-abiding motorists who are minding their own business being stopped, regardless of whether that will make them late for appointments or whatever, and given a breath analysis test. I mentioned this earlier to Mr Lamont and he said, "You do not have a right to drive". We could debate whether or not it is a right to move from place to place via a vehicle, horse or whatever. I am not debating whether it is a good idea to pull over law-abiding motorists and check them or not, but it does relate to what Mr Connolly said. He said that the Government is not into preventive policing. I suggest that they are totally into that.
I think Mr Lamont's argument that you do not have a right to drive is absolute nonsense. Nevertheless, let us just say that that was the case. Are there still cases where the Labor Party fall down on their own actions? Are members of the Labor Party prepared to say that we have no right to live in a private dwelling? If they said that, they would be consistent, because any number of inspectors and authorities in Canberra can go onto somebody's place without their approval. I am talking about potential offences not yet committed. I am talking about law-abiding citizens.
A Labor member might then say, "That situation applies only where you have had a complaint of an offence". As a former police officer, I can tell you that very rarely do police stumble across fights, brawls or whatever in the street. Someone lets them know fast and they go there as a result of a complaint. I do not doubt that we have all had people contact us with concerns that authorities have gone onto their property when they were not there and they had not done anything wrong. You cannot have it both ways. It sounds nice as an argument, but you have to be consistent in what you do. I suggest that it is not all that relevant anyway. It depends on what the community want in these different situations. Ms Szuty mentioned the community at large not accepting move-on powers but presented no evidence. There is only one way you can really find out whether the community at large accepts or does not accept something, and that is to ask them.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .