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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 4 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 969 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

So, Mr Speaker, I set about finding out whether there were alternative mechanisms whereby we could still protect civil liberties, and I brought to the Assembly a series of possible ways of dealing with street offences by way of a matter that was appealable, which is a fundamental part of our democracy. It is absolutely fundamental to us that we have the right of appeal when an administrative decision is made, particularly on matters of policing. That is why it is that people talk about move-on powers being a part of a police state or being the first step on the way to a police state. They have about them a significant danger that there is no appeal mechanism built in. They also have significant advantages. I would never have supported them in the first place if I did not see those advantages. When people are lined up looking like they are about to have a fight, being able to dissipate them under those circumstances has clear advantages. The question is: Are those advantages outweighed by the disadvantages of the infringement of civil liberties? I was prepared to test that. It was tested, and I believe the result of the test was that the advantages were outweighed by the disadvantages in going down that path.

Mr Speaker, I am not so silly that I cannot count. I can see that the numbers are finally here, as we swing to a more conservative Assembly, for Mr Stefaniak and Mr Osborne to get up legislation that they have both proposed in this place. But I do say, Mr Speaker, that I think warnings ought to be given in this Assembly about the downside of this sort of legislation, about this step towards a system which does not have contestability built into it, because fundamental to our democracy is the notion of contestability.

Mr Speaker, I have to say that I think it is a sad day when we pass this sort of legislation. To a certain extent, I can understand why it is that people want it, because we have terrible problems. But, Mr Speaker, were those terrible problems resolved any better in the period when we did have move-on powers than they have been since that time? Did they actually prevent crime? Of course, the answer is: No, they did not. Nobody has brought evidence here to show that they did. Instead, it is about law and order. It is about tub-thumping. It is about a standard electoral ploy of the right wing of the conservatives of saying, "We will move them on. We will protect you from crime". They do it every election and every time either they put up penalties or they take some kind of action like this. What is the result of it all? Nil. It is nil because they come back next time and say, "There is still more crime. We had better do something even more draconian"; so we get a more draconian process.

Mr Speaker, it is simply unnecessary. Let us not forget that we live in the safest city in Australia and that Australia is one of the safest countries in the world in which to live. We live in one of the safest cities in the world. Our crime statistics indicate that very clearly. I agree that there is a perception amongst some elements of our society that that is not the case. What that says to us is not, "Let us do more about law and order". What it says to us is that we should be out there reminding people that they are fortunate to live in one of the safest cities in the world. If I were to leave this Assembly tonight at 20 past 10, as it is now, or at 2 o'clock in the morning, would I walk through Civic? Of course; I often do. Would I walk through Glebe Park? Of course; I often do, even when it is dark. Do I ever feel unsafe? No. Why not? Because we do not have the sorts of problems that this sort of legislation would be designed to resolve.

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