Page 3092 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 15 September 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
A whole series of furphies have come forward in this debate. An alternative is on-the-spot fines, I think Mr Moore suggested. The fact is that on-the-spot fines legislation is not yet in place, and it relies on a crime actually occurring. I think our police are experienced enough to understand that there are circumstances where crimes are inevitably going to take place, and it makes sense to be able to head them off. If we were talking about a policeman arriving at the scene of a crime, loading potential offenders into paddy-wagons and carting them down to the police station to lock them up overnight, we would be talking about a different kettle of fish.
What we are talking about is a very minor set of circumstances where a policeman says, "Please go away. Move off to somewhere else. Go round the corner. Get away from this other crowd you might be about to have a fight with. Do not get involved in a fight. Do not hang around this particular place where obviously trouble is breaking out. Move off somewhere else". Is that really so much to ask? Are we really putting grave scars on the young people of our community by asking them to comply with such directions? Mr Deputy Speaker, it is absolutely absurd to argue that that is the case.
Mr Connolly said that standard provisions across Australia do not have such a power. I hope and trust that he will use the same argument in our favour when we come to consider the legislation concerning the demand of a name and address. Clearly the argument cuts both ways, and clearly it is not being applied consistently.
Mr Connolly asserted that the police have moved on thousands of young people who were not doing anything but minding their own business. I challenge that assertion. It is not what the police have told the Minister; it is not what my understanding of the move-on powers has been. If the Minister believes that that is the case, he ought to demonstrate that at least a handful of people have come forward to complain about the operation of those powers. If they were doing nothing, why have they not taken further steps to deal with the matter? Clearly they have not. No person could be unaware of the intense debate about the move-on powers in this community over the last four years and not realise, if they had half a brain, that they could take the matter further and make trouble for the police by raising this matter. It has not happened. That is my conclusion.
The Minister pointed out that the police argued for more powers concerning fights and they got them, but they accept that the Government decided not to take that advice in respect of move-on powers. The fact of life, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that the Government accepted the advice concerning fights in public places because they realised that there was mounting public concern about what was happening in public places, particularly in Civic. They refused to accept the advice about move-on powers because they had an ideological barrier to doing so, and there was no other reason.
We have heard another argument - young people react badly to police; young people have the worst relationship with police. That undoubtedly is true. But that should not be a basis on which to prevent young people from properly being in contact with police where that might lead to a crime in our community being averted. For example, somebody might avoid being assaulted by virtue of this power being exercised. That argument is not sufficient excuse not to take steps to prevent crime occurring.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .