Page 4695 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 28 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
POLICE OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1990
Debate resumed from 24 October 1990, on motion by Mr Wood:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR CONNOLLY (10.50): Mr Speaker, the Labor Opposition is proposing the repeal of the amendment to the Police Offences Act, the so-called move-on powers, not because we are in any way soft on street crime or favour unruly behaviour on the streets but because we believe that it is a fundamentally bad and unnecessary law which will have the effect of creating more conflict between young people and the police. Before I get onto our effective critique of the Bill, I want to refute allegations, which I know will come from the Government, that Labor is in some way soft on crime or uncaring about the effects of criminal activity on law-abiding citizens.
Mr Speaker, the Labor Party in this Territory is the only party that has publicly indicated that it favours implementation of the United Nations Declaration of Victims' Rights which has been implemented by the Government of South Australia but no other government. The Labor Party made its position clear on that some six months ago, but we have heard not a peep from the Government. Certain members of the Government, in particular, are keen on rhetoric about getting tough on law and order and supposedly getting tough on persons who are seen to break the law, but we have seen no movement towards the implementation of the Declaration of Victims' Rights. I commend to the Government that instrument and positive activity to address the concerns of victims rather than get-tough law and order rhetoric.
Mr Speaker, the proponents of the move-on powers legislation are keen to create the image that, without the move-on powers, Canberra will be a lawless place and that there will be havoc and chaos on the streets. That is simply not so. Before the move-on powers were introduced, there were, we say, effective means of dealing with unruly street behaviour and unruly and unreasonable behaviour by any persons in Canberra who are harassing their fellow citizens.
In the Opposition's view, the report of May 1990 from the Australian Federal Police, which explains the use of the move-on powers and documents each use of the powers, demonstrates that the move-on powers are unnecessary, because in each instance we can show that the situation that was dealt with by the use of the broad and arbitrary move-on powers could have been dealt with under the pre-existing law and the ordinary exercise of police discretion. Our concern is on the basis of civil
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .