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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 4 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 967 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Mr Speaker, as I said, the Bill mirrors the provisions which were in place from 1989 until 1993. During that period they were used on 199 different occasions, involving 2,620 people. During that time, of that entire number of 2,620, something like 27 people were arrested for failing to comply with a direction - very few indeed. It is clear, Mr Speaker - - -

Mr Berry: How many were thrown out of court?

MR HUMPHRIES: None, in fact.

Mr Berry: Yes, they were.

MR HUMPHRIES: I do not believe any were, Mr Speaker, but I will take Mr Berry's advice on it. Perhaps he can give us the details of the time and the place that they occurred. Mr Speaker, if any were affected in that way, they certainly were not all affected in that way. The fact that the powers might not always succeed in court does not indicate, for one instant, that the powers will not ever succeed in court, or that they do not have an effective role to play out in the streets of Canberra.

Mr Speaker, I go back to the figures that I just mentioned. They were used on 199 occasions over four years, involving 2,600 people. Over that period, only 27 people, or only one per cent of the people affected by them, chose to reject the direction of a police officer and they, in turn, were arrested for failing to comply with the direction. Mr Speaker, it follows that on 99 per cent of the occasions when this power was exercised it did result in people peacefully moving on to somewhere else - 99 per cent of occasions where a crime - - -

Mr Berry: Did the crime rate fall? Answer me. Did the crime rate fall?

MR HUMPHRIES: I am not obliged to answer you at all, Mr Berry; I am sorry. I am talking in this debate and you can - - -

MR SPEAKER: Order! There will be no interjections, Mr Berry. You will have an opportunity to respond when you wish to.

MR HUMPHRIES: Indeed, Mr Speaker. The fact is that these laws, on any measure, have been effective. They have achieved the purpose for which they were in place for four years. It is, in my view, regrettable that the Assembly did not allow them to continue to operate beyond that time. Indeed, the Assembly laid down very specific conditions for the continuation of move-on powers in both 1991 and 1993, when the sunset clauses which had operated in respect of the previous legislation came up for renewal. They said that, if there was evidence that the powers in the Act had been abused, the Assembly would repeal them or allow the sunset clauses to operate to make them lapse. Mr Speaker, my recollection of the debate in 1991 is that there was no instance of any abuse before the Assembly.

Mr Moore: There was. That is why I changed my mind. That is why I changed my vote.

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