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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (9 August) . . Page.. 2777 ..

MR STEFANIAK: I am sorry, Jon. Maybe I should let Ms Tucker speak.

Ms Tucker: No, because if we are successful with this one, I will not need to move mine.

MR SPEAKER: Order! We are discussing clause 9, not clause 10.

MR STEFANIAK: Okay. Mr Speaker, I will be fairly brief and I will speak to both Ms Tucker's amendments and Mr Stanhope's comments. I am sorry, Mr Stanhope, if you are just opposing clause 9.

MR SPEAKER: So we are going to have a cognate debate on clauses 9 and 10.

MR STEFANIAK: Yes, but you are opposing clause 10 as well, aren't you, Mr Stanhope?

Mr Stanhope: Yes.

MR STEFANIAK: I think we should have a cognate debate.

MR SPEAKER: Is that agreed?

Mr Stanhope: Yes. I am supporting Ms Tucker's amendments.

MR STEFANIAK: Basically, Ms Tucker and Mr Stanhope are seeking to get rid of the move-on powers entirely. The improvement to the move-on powers is simply so that police will be able to direct people to leave the vicinity for a period of not less than six hours and actually indicate a direction in which they should go. That is utterly basic common sense. It is something that the police have indicated would be incredibly handy for them, because it would enable protagonists to leave and not be able to reoffend, get themselves into trouble, hurt themselves.

The move-on powers are commonsense measures which were introduced in 1989 and deactivated in 1993. Mr Osborne reintroduced them several years ago. They enable the police to defuse difficult situations. They have been particularly useful in breaking up fights and overcoming potential trouble between people in places such as Civic outside the bus interchange. They have been particularly useful in ensuring that some young people who might get themselves into trouble otherwise are moved on and do not end up before the courts for more serious matters, such as assault or malicious damage to property.

It is little wonder that when these powers were first mooted back in 1989 some 70 per cent of the population were in support of them, including 58 per cent of people under 25 years of age. Little wonder, because it is young people who benefit most from these powers. One can understand older people being concerned about street offences, so an overwhelming number of them would support these measures. I was particularly heartened to see the Canberra Times poll showing that 58 per cent of the young people surveyed were in support of these powers and only about 25 per cent of them were opposed to them, because it is fundamentally young people who benefit. Even if you

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