Page 3823 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 8 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General and Minister for Health) (5.45): Madam Speaker, Mr Humphries says that he would be happy to give his name and address to a police officer. I think that, under the Hare-Clark electoral system, at the moment in this Territory we would all be happy to give our name and address to anybody who would listen.
It is correct to say that the Government is asking the Assembly to choose to go further than the Commonwealth law. It is because of that - we would say - fairly meaningless distinction between summary and indictable in the community policing context. I have given my reasons in the in-principle stage. I reiterate that that safeguard in subsection (4) is a significant one. The additional safeguard is that it is a notorious fact that the AFP is subject to a complaints mechanism that is more rigorous than that of any other police force in Australia. The Ombudsman has clearly shown - whether or not one necessarily agrees with some Ombudsman's reports over issues like Aidex - that she is not backward in coming forward in pursuing police complaints with some vigour. If we were to see in future Ombudsman's reports that this power was abused, as I said before, we would revisit it. I know that Mr Moore is very genuine in raising this issue of civil liberties, and I think he would acknowledge that the Government takes these issues very seriously. We did agonise long and hard over this; but it is one issue that we think, on balance, is appropriate.
MS SZUTY (5.46): Madam Speaker, in speaking to the amendment, first of all, I would like to thank the officers from the Attorney-General's Department who gave me an extensive briefing on this Bill last week. I took the opportunity to raise Mr Moore's amendment with those officers, and they pointed out that, in its original report, the Australian Law Reform Commission made no distinction between summary and indictable offences in relation to this matter, and neither did the Gibbs report address the issue. I think it is significant that, when a Bill similar to this was being debated in the Commonwealth Parliament, the Democrats saw fit to propose an amendment whereby this particular matter would be restricted to indictable offences. I also note that the Government did not oppose the amendment that the Democrats put forward.
I note the Attorney-General's comments on this matter. He said that it is difficult at times to draw the distinction between indictable and summary offences in a community policing context. However, as Mr Moore has pointed out, it is reasonable to assume that people know the difference between serious and not serious offences. Mr Moore is certainly erring on the side of caution. I believe that that is the appropriate position to take in relation to this matter. I understand how powerless some young people, in particular, would feel at being confronted by a police officer and being asked to give their name and address. I think it would be a very confronting experience for most people. As Mr Moore pointed out, some members of this chamber would not find that experience very uncomfortable at all. I take some comfort from the Attorney-General's comments that the Assembly may revisit the matter if the process is seen to be abused. I take note of that, knowing that Mr Moore's amendment is likely to be defeated in this instance.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .