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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (9 August) . . Page.. 2763 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

The Attorney-General and his cohorts set up a police and prosecution advisory group earlier this year to recommend changes to the law. Organisations with an equally valuable perspective on the issue-the Law Society, the Aboriginal Justice Advisory Committee, the Youth Coalition of the ACT, among others-have not been part of the discussions. But the Police Association specifically were included.

When it comes to changes to police powers and the administration of justice, it is often only the interests of the police that this government even purports to represent. The ill thought through victims of crime legislation is a good illustration of that approach.

Yesterday we had a debate on Mr Hird's motion on the success of policing. I do not recall Mr Hird saying anything yesterday about how police carrying out their duties have been limited by laws that require them to reasonably believe rather than suspect people of offences. I do not recall anyone in the Assembly yesterday talking about how much safer our community would be if only police had the right to force entry into cars suspected of carrying traffic evasion articles.

I think I recall the government side of this house expressing the view that the police and government have been doing a very good job, and that this was a fine thing for the community at large. The point is that the police do not appear to have been unduly hindered by the lack of powers available to them.

Perhaps the most extraordinary insight into the process has come out of inquiries my office has made in regard to evidence of the need for these amendments. There is anecdotal explanation for most of them but very little by way of statistics.

The power in this bill for police to enter a house without a warrant, on the basis of a suspected negligent driving offence, illustrates the problem. Under this bill, police may argue that they reasonably suspect someone of driving a car with bald tyres. Is that a rationale to enter the home of someone and arrest them without a warrant? However, neither the department nor the police have been able to proffer any instance where such a power can be shown to be necessary.

We are shifting a long way from the requirement that police need to gain a warrant before entering your house or car and that they need to believe you have committed an offence before they stop and search you or arrest you.

It seems that the working party for the police is of the view that there are a number of known offenders whose involvement in crime is linked to dependence on illicit drugs and that if the police were allowed simply to bail them up on suspicion and bust into their houses or cars on suspicion there would not be a crime problem anymore. And if we need to ride roughshod over any more general principles of law-civil liberties-as we deal with this situation, that is not really a problem for a party that wants to demonstrate it is tough on crime, is it?

One could take a more thoughtful approach. In some ways Mr Humphries is saying that he will do that, in his public support now for the concept of a heroin trial and a safe injecting place. I think he is supporting both of them now. I am glad to see that. But we obviously have to go a lot further.

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