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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (9 August) . . Page.. 2778 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

are likely to be someone who might get themselves into trouble, these powers will ensure that you will be moved on and will not be going to get yourself in trouble, perhaps saving you from being caught for something more serious.

Some material was provided to Ms Tucker in relation to this matter. I am just trying to find it. Ms Tucker has some amendments here which want the police to take all sorts of details. Indeed, she wants the government to commission an independent review after two years. That is what happened in 1989. The police had to take all those details and we had to review the situation after two years. Some 2,600 people were moved on and I do not think that there were any instances of real problems there. That was scrutinised incredibly by the Assembly. That requirement was not there when Mr Osborne reintroduced the powers, and rightly so, because it is a needless imposition on police resources. They have done so in the past, Ms Tucker. If you check the Hansard of the First Assembly you will see how effectively the powers were used. There is no indication that they are not being used effectively now.

It is not appropriate to require police to keep exhaustive statistics on the use of move-on powers. Move-on powers are quick, effective and impose little to no administrative burden on police, and those advantages should be retained. Requiring police to record details such as Ms Tucker proposes is simply ridiculous, especially details of a person known to an officer, given that often large groups of people are involved. One of the instances that we looked at in about 1990 involved 100 people being moved on before a situation resulted in a horrible fight in Tuggeranong. That is not the point of the move-on powers. It is to get people away. It is to stop them getting themselves into trouble and to nip potential difficult situations in the bud.

The advantage of the move-on powers for both police and the people concerned is that the police are not required to take details of anyone being moved on. I think it would be a backward step to require police to do so. I think that would be utterly pointless. If there is any requirement for police to keep some records, they can be kept administratively. I think I have provided Ms Tucker with some details in terms of just how many people were before the courts. The figure was about 11 or 12 for the last year or so. That is very much indicative of what we found when the powers were first introduced. Not that many people are charged as most people will move on. It is a very effective tool and has proven to be so in terms of defusing difficult situations.

The amendments to the powers simply enhance them, to the benefit of everyone, especially the people who are moved on. The government is rather disappointed that the Labor Party is seeking to delete these powers and Ms Tucker is seeking to substantially amend them in a very ineffective way.

MR RUGENDYKE (10.47): I will be supporting the Attorney's amendment to the Crime Prevention Powers Act 1998. The move-on powers are an important tool for police to use and I see no need to have them watered down or done away with.

Mr Speaker, I apologise for missing the in-principle debate. I would like to go on the record as being proud to support our police by supporting Mr Stefaniak's amendments, which have gazumped a lot of what I was planning to do. Ms Tucker derides the office of a police officer. She is worried that there might be more police officers in this Assembly. I find it unfortunate that she has that view. She says nothing about there

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