Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 7 Hansard (19 October) . . Page.. 1887 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

benefits of the current system. Obviously, there are some faults there - there always are with any system - but there are considerable benefits. We must remember that many police in Canberra are very much local police and are quite happy to stay as local police, with maybe the odd tour of duty outside of Canberra. For that reason if no other, it is terribly important to have a Minister for Police in the Assembly.

But it goes a lot further than that. This Assembly passes laws in relation to crime and various duties of police. That law affects police in their daily operations in Canberra. The Police Minister is responsible for bringing those laws before the Assembly. Mr Osborne is very keen to see the move-on powers brought back. I would love to see them brought back, too. In fact, I did bring them back in 1989. Move-on powers are an example of a local law. My colleague has brought in a number of laws, most of them with bipartisan support, which relate to how police go about their duty in the Territory. That is so terribly important. That is one of the crucial reasons why we need our own Police Minister. If we did not have our own Police Minister but relied on the Federal Minister, how on earth could we bring in those laws and have them enforced with our police force here? Having a Police Minister is part of self-government. ACT laws have to be implemented by the police in Canberra. That is so terribly important. Mr Osborne might not understand what influence and what role the Police Minister has in relation to the local police force. No doubt the Minister will elaborate. From time to time he has to issue instructions to the police, just as a Minister does to any department. My colleague will probably tell you that there has not been an occasion when a proper instruction given by him on any sort of matter has not been followed. That is the role of a Minister and that is the role of a Police Minister. The ACT Police Minister is no different. My colleague can elaborate on that.

I have mentioned a number of things which indicate that, whilst our police force has a national focus, it also has a local focus and a Police Minister is essential. In fact, I would say quite confidently that 95 per cent or more of policing in the ACT would come under the ambit of my colleague Mr Humphries, rather than the Federal Minister. What my colleague does is so crucially important for the day-to-day operations of the local police component of the AFP, which is a very significant component of that force.

Mr Osborne talked about changes in the force. Might I put on record at this stage my best wishes to the two retiring senior officers, Ric Ninness and Lloyd Worthy. When I was a prosecutor, I knew Ric a lot better than I did Lloyd. I called him as a witness in numerous court cases. I have always regarded him as a very fine police officer, and it is sad to see him go. But these things do happen; people do move on. Both of those officers are senior officers who have been in the force for a very long time.

A number of changes have occurred. Mr Palmer has taken over. I suppose that, as is the wont of commissioners, he is keen to put his mark on what happens, and a number of changes have been initiated. My colleague can indicate just how much he was involved in all of those. In June 1995 the Legal Services Branch was disbanded. Its functions were devolved to the four policing districts. I am sure that my colleague was very much involved. A few weeks ago my colleague announced a restructuring of the force that was to affect the Traffic Branch, the Drug Squad and the Fraud Squad. Mr Humphries, as the

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .