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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (9 August) . . Page.. 2792 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

If you are going to do something as fundamental as that, at least refer it to the justice committee, call for some submissions, have a decent debate, get the community involved and convince us that you need to give the police these extra powers. Convince us that you need to detract from the rights that we and those we are here making decisions for currently have. Prove to us that we should reduce the rights of all the citizens of Canberra because the police desperately need these increased powers. You just have not done it.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Attorney-General) (11.43): I do not know if I could ever actually convince Mr Stanhope, but I will just point out for members that what Mr Stanhope is actually proposing is to change the current section of the Crimes ACT-the one that has existed for some time-from: "This section applies if a police officer suspects on reasonable grounds-

Mr Stanhope: That is what my amendment says-"on reasonable grounds". It is not a particularly onerous test.

MR STEFANIAK: It is, unfortunately, Mr Stanhope. You make it virtually impossible. I am talking about the current law-not even what I am trying to amend and trying to put in here-at section 349T of the Crimes Act, which says:

This section applies if a police officer suspects, on reasonable grounds, that-

and then you have your three matters. You say:

This section applies if a police officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that ...

Again, you have got "believes" rather than "suspects", which is a much higher standard of proof. So you are making even the existing law harder for police, which I think needs to be pointed out. That is over and above the improvements which we are seeking to make here to the existing law.

MR MOORE (Minister for Health, Housing and Community Services) (11.45): It strikes me that Mr Stefaniak has a point. I have looked through this, and I am quite happy with the notion of changing "believes" to "suspects". What I have just written out I am prepared to circulate, which is to omit, Mr Stanhope, your word "believes" and replace it with the word "suspects". That bring us back to the original thing but uses your tests. That would be reasonable, and I would ask for that amendment to be circulated.

It is not difficult. Mr Stanhope's amendment No 4 currently reads:

This section applies if a police officer believes, on reasonable grounds ...

The amendment to your amendment that I have just requested to be circulated would be:

This section applies if a police officer suspects on reasonable grounds ...

Then your tests, I think, are quite reasonable. That does make a slightly easier test.

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