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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (9 August) . . Page.. 2808 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

illustrate why this power is unacceptable, that this power should not be given to the police.

Once again, the Attorney has done himself a tremendous disservice in bringing forward this legislation without any justification for why he needs to give the AFP in Canberra a power to break into homes in circumstances where the police suspect-not believe-they may find evidence of a summary offence.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Attorney-General) (1.15 am): Mr Speaker, I note that we are dealing with clauses 24 to 27 together. Clauses 24 and 25 simply seek to substitute the word "believes" with "suspects" in relation to arrest of a prisoner unlawfully at large and arrest without warrant for offences committed outside the territory. I think obviously the arguments for that are exactly the same as the ones we had earlier. What Jon is talking about-

Mr Stanhope: I have given up on that, Bill. I thought we had passed that point.

MR STEFANIAK: It is just the way the sheet is written, Jon. Obviously, what you are talking about relates to clause 26 (Power to enter premises to arrest offender) and clause 27 (Section 349ZE (4)). I make that point because we will need to vote on clauses 24 and 25 together and then clauses 26 and 27.

Mr Stanhope made a couple of points. I might say that clause 24 is consistent with section 352AA of the New South Wales Crimes Act. Clause 25 is consistent with 352A of the New South Wales Crimes Act and it merely mirrors what we have done already.

Mr Stanhope also raised the question of power of entry. Currently section 349ZE is limited to indictable offences only. Specified summary offences, which include minor theft, menacing, dangerous or negligent driving and offensive weapons, were chosen by the working party on the basis that they were sufficiently serious to warrant powers of entry. Some concerns certainly have been expressed about the inclusion of particular offences-for example, negligent driving. Clearly, however, police will not forcibly enter premises under this provision unless such action is justified, and I will have a bit more to say about that in a minute.

In most cases this would be inappropriate in relation to a specified summary offence. However, in some cases it will be necessary, and that is a matter that we would say is properly left to the discretion of the police. I reiterate my earlier comments about the various complaint mechanisms that may be used by members of the public if police are perceived to have overstepped the mark.

Mr Stanhope made a number of comments about some really serious problems in the New South Wales police force. There have been serious problems in a number of police forces. We have been very lucky here. We are a small territory and we have had some very strong complaint mechanisms and some strong checks and balances in respect of the AFP and, before it, the ACT police. I think that differentiation is terribly important.

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