Page 3821 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 8 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I thank Mr Moore for his comments in relation to the way the AFP have developed a very strong community policing ethos. They do not always go for the more serious penalty. They do look for a range of penalties. I think they do act with commendable restraint in often difficult circumstances. I would not like to have a situation where we were almost encouraging the police to go for the more serious offence rather than a less serious offence, merely to trigger the power. It is a decision that the Government has taken after much consideration. We thought about it long and hard. That is one of the reasons why we introduced that very significant additional safeguard in relation to requiring a police officer to record, in writing, why they formed the belief that an offence was being committed, and making failure to do that also an offence. It is, I believe, an appropriate balance between civil liberties, which we regard very highly, and the ability of the police to get about and do their job. If there were abuses, we would take them seriously. If there were widespread abuses, I have no hesitation in saying that I would be happy to come back to the Assembly, revisit it and perhaps look at Mr Moore's proposal. But my belief is that, with the additional safeguards and with the proven track record of the AFP of acting with restraint, this is an appropriate Bill for community policing, because the distinction between summary and indictable offences in a community policing context is often quite meaningless.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Detail Stage
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole
MR MOORE (5.39): Madam Speaker, I move:
Page 16, line 21, clause 5, proposed new paragraph 349V(1)(a), before "offence", insert "indictable".
Madam Speaker, before I speak to the amendment, I might just draw members' attention to another small thing that I missed in my initial speech. I notice that proposed section 349ZX actually refers to forensic samples, not to a sports car!
Madam Speaker, in relation to whether we should deal with an offence that is indictable rather than one that is summary, Mr Connolly, as always, put together a very good debating case. I think the case still remains that the Acts Interpretation Act does make a distinction and that, even with those safeguards, we are still whittling away at civil liberties. I recognise that this is a better circumstance than the one formerly proposed, because of those safeguards; but I draw Mr Connolly's attention to the point that a police officer might have terrible trouble doing the paperwork. To use his example of where police officers on the beat come around the corner and find a couple of people, or a dozen people, fighting and they believe that it is an assault, a police officer could simply write in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .