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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (20 November) . . Page.. 3866 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Clearly, the most important guideline under which the AFP operate is the law of the Territory. Up until now, the law of the Territory for the people of the Territory has been made in this chamber, not in the Commonwealth Parliament, except of course to the extent that national laws are made in the Commonwealth Parliament. I have not observed the Australian Federal Police having any difficulty in operating under laws made by this parliament. For example, with respect to possession of small quantities of cannabis the law applying in the ACT is different from that in other parts of Australia. The Australian Federal Police have no difficulty effectively applying that law. The fact that some officers of the AFP operate in other jurisdictions where other laws apply does not occasion any difficulty. Similarly, other policies formulated at other levels and applying in the ACT and governing the AFP's operations in the Territory do not occasion any practical difficulty. The knee-jerk reaction of the Federal Government in saying that they cannot tolerate the concept of a separate ACT commissioner is disappointing, is not well-based in logic and has the potential to compromise the ACT's policing function.

It is important that a Minister in this chamber be accountable to the parliament and the people of the Territory for the conduct of Federal police in the Territory, because those police are paid for by the taxpayers of the Territory. They are charged with the peace and order of the Territory. I think it is extremely important that we emphasise to the Commonwealth that we view our responsibilities as being such that they give us a greater say in the management of the Federal police function in respect of the Territory and that the recommendation made by the Standing Committee on Legal Affairs last year is an appropriate accommodation of that duty and should be acted upon by the Commonwealth. I therefore support the reaffirmation of that recommendation. I also note that the Commonwealth Attorney-General does not support the recommendation. That is disappointing.

I have a slight difficulty with paragraph (3) of Mr Osborne's motion. I am not really sure that it is entirely true to say that the Commonwealth Attorney-General remains the Minister responsible for policing in the Capital Territory. Technically, I think that is a debatable point, but I certainly accept the spirit of what Mr Osborne has said. I advise the Assembly that the Chief Minister has already written to the Commonwealth Attorney-General seeking a meeting with him on some related issues. If that invitation is taken up, it is my intention and the Chief Minister's intention to raise with the Federal Attorney-General the concerns that this Assembly has expressed in the recommendations of the standing committee and will express today in the passage, I assume, of this motion.

I advise the Assembly that, if this motion is passed in the present form and the Federal Attorney-General accepts our invitation to meet, we will ask him whether it would be acceptable to invite Mr Osborne, as chair of the Standing Committee on Legal Affairs, to attend the meeting as well. I hope that we can deal with the issue by sitting down with the Commonwealth and impressing on them that the resolution of this issue they have imposed is a most unsatisfactory outcome of these deliberations and it does not leave the ACT in a position to adequately and comprehensively take responsibility for the policing of the Territory. Frankly, with an area as sensitive as this, it is not acceptable to leave that issue dangling on some jurisdictional divide between the Commonwealth and the ACT. The authority must be clear, and I hope that the motion Mr Osborne has moved will reinforce that authority.

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