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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 4 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 981 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

because they are empowered to do that; they have powers of arrest. If somebody is involved in a violent activity, they can be arrested if it is a crime, and they should be arrested. But for you to say that the police have no powers, I think, is disingenuous. There are powers for police to deal with persons involved in damage to property, for example.

Mr Moore made the right point. The point is that if police arrest persons involved in or about to be involved in crime, the police can be challenged in the courts. Under the move-on powers, there is no challenge unless you refuse. So, you must refuse and be arrested before you can challenge the authority of a policeman. This is a summary power which ought not to be handed over lightly. It is a simplistic approach to a difficult problem that may exist in one or two places in the community. The fact of the matter is that, throughout time, there will always be sullen youth who will challenge authority. To alienate them with these sorts of powers is to demonstrate the inability of the proponents of these laws to come to grips with law enforcement.

It disappoints me that their own experience does not tell them that there is another way. It disappoints me that they do not care about the alienation of individuals who might be moved on under these powers. I think that is a significant issue which has been avoided in this place. Sure, as I said earlier, some police would think that this is a good idea because it might make their lot easier; but that is not to say that it is a justification for taking away the civil rights of others. This problem, and the solution to it, has been created largely by ruthless politicians who go and create the impression that something is terribly wrong, so that we need these move-on powers.

Bill Stefaniak did it when they were first raised in the Assembly and, of course, Paul Osborne and Dave Rugendyke are doing it now. The problem is not so serious as to require this serious infringement of civil liberties. The proponents of this Bill do not know what they are talking about. It is merely pandering to a created public impression, and the creation of the public impression was mostly the work of politicians. As I said earlier and as Michael Moore said earlier, this is the old law and order tub-thumping which will not achieve the desired result.

Mr Speaker, take a look at some of this law. Clause 4, under the heading "Move-on powers", states:

Where a police officer has reasonable grounds for believing that a person in a public place has engaged, or is likely to engage, in violent conduct in that place, the police officer may direct the person to leave the vicinity.

What they are saying to the policeman is, "If somebody has engaged in violent behaviour you should move them on, not arrest them. Here is an option for you to move them on, rather than arresting them". It could be violence to or intimidation of a person. Intimidation of a person could be an assault. What you are saying to the policeman is, "You should not arrest them; you should move them on. It is too much trouble to arrest them, as they might challenge your authority". That is what you are saying.

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