Page 1322 - Week 07 - Thursday, 24 August 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
which was not terribly well informed, a lot of unreasonable, illogical and quite wrong fears were raised in relation to the issue of a move-on power. A move-on power in either form - either this form or in the original Bill - is a very simple piece of legislation; it is commonsense legislation.
Those concerns, I was very pleased to see, were not expressed in that opinion poll, where even amongst people under 25 some 58 per cent supported the police getting move-on powers and only some 32 per cent opposed it. In the older age group, the people less able to look after and protect themselves from louts in this city, 81 per cent supported the power and about nine per cent opposed it. Overall, 70 per cent supported it and only 25 per cent opposed the police getting move-on powers.
The Chief Minister raised two points, Mr Speaker. She stated that a police presence is still required to give effect to move-on powers. A police presence is certainly required and desirable in Canberra - you cannot beat a policeman on the beat. I think, as you, Mr Speaker, so ably said, there is not much point in police being there if they do not have power to do anything. And that is what this Bill is aimed at, giving police the power to nip potential trouble in the bud or, if they come across a scene a little bit too late, to ensure that further trouble does not occur.
When I brought in my original legislation, I referred to the death of young Grant Cameron at a school fete, where police were called twice as a result of youths fighting but were unable to move them on because they did not have the power. The third time they were called, a young man lay dead as a result.
Mr Speaker, the Chief Minister mentioned a second point. She said that circumstances such as breach of the peace are already there. Really that is what this is all about and that can be covered. Breach of the peace is enshrined, in fact, in the move-on legislation in South Australia. It was a clause which we took out of the initial Bill because of civil liberty fears. That was when Mr Collaery and I drafted the initial Bill. He dissociated himself from that as time went on. It was taken out.
In fact, Mr Collaery and I both noted, funnily enough, that in the Law Reform Commission's submission there was also legislation in relation to a breach of the peace and we felt that was not the best type of legislation. Powers in the event of a breach of the peace are theoretically available to the Australian Federal Police but have not been used since 1985. I do not have time to go into the legal reasons why, because they are quite detailed, but it is not really relevant to this type of legislation.
The Chief Minister mentioned that she was very pleased to see that this Bill was now restricted to "person" and not "any person". In the Bill I presented and then amended in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .