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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (9 August) . . Page.. 2804 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

It is appropriate to allow police to arrest the person on that basis. If we are going to be serious about tackling crime in our community and if we are going to be serious about trying to continue to reduce burglaries, we need to give the police reasonable tools to do the job. It is no problem in New South Wales; it is no problem in Queensland.

A number of checks and balances remain. I will come to those in a second. The scrutiny of bills committee did not have any substantive comments to make on the proposed change to the reasonable suspicion test. They pointed out that the reasonable suspicion test is found in documents such as the European Convention on Human Rights.

The existing time limits on detention of arrested persons for the purposes of investigation will remain. With the suspect in detention, however, there is a reduced likelihood of evidence being destroyed and/or other people connected with the offence going into hiding while the investigations are under way.

Reasonable suspicion is something more than mere suspicion. At least Ms Tucker is starting to appreciate that. It requires a legitimate basis for arrest; it requires a legitimate basis for search.

The comments I have already made in relation to the reasonable suspicion test in the context of search powers also apply here. Police have indicated to the government that there have been many instances where they would be able to apprehend offenders with a reasonable suspicion test, especially in relation to burglary. But with the very high required standard of reasonable belief they are simply unable to do so. They do not have the power. There is no way they can apprehend that person. That person can simply walk, and of course it does not take long to get rid of stolen goods.

This brings us into line with other states. I hark back to the fact that it is found in the European Convention on Human Rights. It is not rocket science, but it is very important if we are to be serious in addressing crime. I am very disappointed that those opposite are putting up obstacles to this very commonsense improvement to the Crimes Act.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (1.00 am): Mr Speaker, because the Attorney refused to consult with anybody around the town that would have a view contrary to his, I think it is important that I let him know what the Law Society, that rabid left-wing band, would have said to him had they been consulted. They would have said to the Attorney, had he bothered to ask them or to involve them, that arrest based on suspicion is a significantly different test from arrest based on belief. That is from the Law Society, that rabid mob of lawyers, those pinko lefties.

Mr Stefaniak: You might have a bit of a vested interest, Jon.

MR STANHOPE: Police and prosecutors do not have a vested interest, only the Law Society! The Law Society would have told you:

Suspicion may be aroused without any checking of allegations or fact as is necessary to found reasonable belief. Is it intended that a suspicion based on a, perhaps unfounded, generalisation is sufficient to constitute a "reasonable

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