Page 2313 - Week 07 - Thursday, 4 August 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Although I do not support the expanded NAPRO move-on powers, I do see that they were passed with the support of other members, regardless of the concerns that I had raised. I do reiterate my comments that I made about the potential broader application of NAPROs and move-on powers, their disproportionate impacts on vulnerable groups and the fact that this is exactly what has happened in other jurisdictions repeatedly.
The amendment I am moving calls for the gathering of data. It would at least require the government to monitor and report on the use of these powers. They will have to provide yearly reports on the use of the new powers detailing the number of times the powers are used, the type of behaviour or offences they are used for and the number of uses that relate to young people and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
This way we will at least know if they are being used to address issues of serious organised crime, which is what their stated intention is, or if in fact they are being used for other purposes. If they are being used for other purposes we will see the data and we will be able to assess as an Assembly whether we are satisfied with the impacts they are having. Are they running counter to our desire to support vulnerable groups, to recognise their different needs and the value of diverting them from the criminal justice system? If we do not have this data, we simply will not know that. If as an Assembly we are prepared to put these powers in place we have to at least be accountable to ourselves to check that the data shows they are being used in a way that was intended and not in the unintended way that we have seen in other jurisdictions.
I do not think anybody here intends it to be the case that we see more young people, more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, more homeless people being picked up on the street and finding themselves charged with new offences. I accept that this place does not intend that but unfortunately what we have seen in other jurisdictions that have used similar powers or implemented similar powers is that that is how they are used.
We must at least hold ourselves accountable in this place to have the data so that in a year’s time, two years time, three years time, we can honestly come in here and have the discussion, “Actually, it did turn out like other jurisdictions,” and then we can have a genuine debate about whether we need to remove these powers or further adjust them to make sure they are delivering what we intended, not the unintended consequences. I implore members to support this amendment so that we can have that evidence-based discussion down the line.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Health, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for the Environment and Climate Change) (12.12): The government will not be supporting Mr Rattenbury’s proposed amendments to the bill. While the government accepts the merit of the proposals, the advice from police, law courts and tribunal administration is that it is not a feasible proposal at this time. In relation to exclusion orders, while police must make a record of any orders issued, this record may be taken in an officer’s individual notebook rather than captured on a central information system. In
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video