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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (3 September) . . Page.. 2789 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

they are going to have to deal with the Magistrates Court and explain why it is that they ought not to have had a fine. The Bill empowers the police in a very positive way, but it still allows individuals to appeal should they so wish. The choice is still there for an officer to charge somebody and to take them back to the station if they think that that is the appropriate way, if they think that the level of fighting or the level of misbehaviour or public mischief is such that it ought not to be dealt with by a $100 fine.

It is a sensible technique for allowing police to choose whether they want to keep police officers at the scene or whether they should take people away to charge them. At the moment it is awkward for police to decide whether they should stay somewhere in the hope that a police presence has an impact on maintaining good public behaviour or whether they should take two police out of the situation in order to charge somebody who is acting inappropriately. It seems to me that individuals who are likely to offend in this sort of way will very soon learn that they may wind up with a $100 fine or the choice of going to the Magistrates Court.

That takes me to the third advantage of this legislation. It allows the police to react immediately. There is no doubt that with certain types of minor public misbehaviour an immediate reaction that gives a result sends a very clear message to individuals who are involved in this sort of thing. If you are going to be involved in inappropriate behaviour, if you are going to be involved in drinking in public places where that is prohibited, if you are going to be involved in offensive behaviour or if you are going to be involved in fighting, you are likely to wind up with a $100 on-the-spot fine. At the moment the message is that you have to be taken back to the station and charged, that that will take the police off the beat and that probably nothing will happen. There is a fair chance that you will get away with it.

This Bill strengthens the arm of the police, but at the same time it allows them to do their job. It does what police move-on powers do not do. It provides the opportunity for an appeal to the Magistrates Court. That is the critical part, the contestability. It provides for civil liberties. When somebody is accused, they have the right to appeal to a court or, if they so choose, they can pay the $100 fine and that is the end of the matter. For a minor public misbehaviour, it is a $100 fine.

I would urge members not to use the term "on-the-spot fine", because it gives an impression that people actually hand over money to the police officer. Certainly, from my discussions with people around this city, I know that the impression people have is that if you are given a expiation notice you give the police officer $100 and the matter is finished. It is not done like that at all. It is done in the same way as for a traffic offence. No money must go to a police officer. The reasons for that are clear. The expiation notice is issued. If you wish the matter to be expiated, then you go to the police station and get the receipt for your $100 and then the matter is finished.

This legislation, as I said, is about choice for the individual and choice for the police officer. It is about keeping police on the beat in an effective way. It is about allowing police to react immediately. It provides for civil liberties, in that it provides for contesting a decision that is made by a police officer. In other words, it still protects civil liberties.

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