Page 785 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 1 April 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
at Gungahlin where there are only about eight police officers at the station which is not manned all the time.
Those were the specific offences. It did not matter whether they were of officer rank or the lowliest constable who was just starting out on their career, those are the offences which they wanted to have on-the-spot fines for. I think it is patronising in the extreme to suggest that the police would do anything other than their duty properly. They are in an ideal situation, perhaps far better than a court, in terms of coming across someone in the street doing some simple street offence act such as fight in a public place.
It is not rocket science. It is painfully obvious to anyone who comes across, say, an incident like that whether, in fact, it is a scuffle which initially you can talk to the people about and, if that does not work, give them an infringement notice or whether some further action such as an arrest is warranted. This does not stop the police arresting, even for these minor street offences. Obviously blind Freddy would tell you that, if a more serious assault had taken place, the police then would arrest in relation to that. They do it all the time. They have done it for decades. It is an absolute furphy to suggest otherwise, as, indeed, Dr Foskey and Mr Corbell are actually suggesting in relation to that. I would submit it is the police who are the best to judge these issues.
Similarly, with offensive behaviour, yes, it is a wide coverall; and, yes, we do not have “unseemly words” or “offensive language”, the offence that I tried to put back in. We have the coverall of “offensive language”, quite correctly summed up by the minister. But it is painfully obvious, again. I think any of us who wander around late at night or, indeed, at other times would know—and a reasonable man or woman would know—what is offensive and what is not. Quite clearly, it is quite offensive to have people screaming, yelling and harassing other people.
I have probably been a bit concerned. I have spoken to many people who, despite the minister’s assurances that we do not have as big a problem here as elsewhere, do not feel that way, rightly or wrongly. They feel intimidated. They feel it has changed late at night in Civic. Even someone like Michael Moore, who wrote an article in the City News, seemed to express great concerns in relation to Civic and nearby in Reid. A lot of people I have spoken to have felt that it is quite different to what it was 10 or 15 years ago. Rightly or wrongly, there is that perception.
How do you change that? You change that by encompassing a scheme that provides, as far as it can, a maximum coverage. An on-the-spot scheme is a good one. I have already indicated there has been a 50 per cent reduction in street offences when trialled in parts of Sydney and trialled with the offences of offensive language and fight in a public place.
It has been very effective. It is an essential tool in the police armoury in terms of countering antisocial activity on the street. It is something I think the police would not ask for and would not ask for so passionately were it not seen to be so effective in doing the job that it is there to do.
I think it is crucially important—and this government, I know, has an aversion to doing this—to give the police all the reasonable legislative tools they need to do their
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .