Page 2424 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 18 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That power was conferred, as I said, four years ago. It was a reflection of the great concern that this Assembly had that it was passed with a sunset clause. That sunset clause provided that the power should expire two years hence; that the Assembly should have the chance to peruse the operation of this power after a period of two years had elapsed. At the end of that two years, in August 1991, the Assembly again considered this power and decided to extend it for a further two years. Those four years in total are about to expire on 6 September. This Bill, Madam Speaker, will remove the sunset clause and provide for that power to operate on a permanent basis.
As I said, the power and the terms of the power as defined in the Police Offences Act reflect the great concern of this Assembly, and of the community, that the powers granted to our police were capable of abuse. That is why they were granted initially for only two years and subsequently for a further two years. This was so that the police would be able to demonstrate their capacity to use the powers responsibly and would be aware that the powers had been granted strictly on a trial basis. The powers have been used in the last four years approximately 199 times. I believe, Madam Speaker, that it is time for the Assembly to decide whether the police of this Territory have exercised these powers responsibly, whether their exercise has been free of abuse, or misuse, or whether the powers should be withdrawn because they are not working or constitute an actual threat to, or encroachment on, the civil liberties of Canberrans.
I believe that we have had sufficient time to assess the operation of these powers, and it is now up to us to decide whether the police have indeed acted responsibly and exercised the powers as it was intended they should be exercised. The test we set on the two previous occasions on which we have considered these powers was very onerous. It was most onerously defined by Mr Moore when he came to debate this matter in 1991. He said on that occasion:
I still feel, as I felt in August 1989, that it should be understood that we perceive this as a trial, as filling a gap. But let me give a warning: If we hear of even one police officer abusing this power we will move as quickly as possible, at the very next sitting, to remove the Bill.
That is a pretty tall order. Even a single case of abuse would have provided one more vote at least for withdrawing these powers from the police. Have the police complied with that very rigid standard? Madam Speaker, the evidence before us is that the police have met that test. The Minister has been kind enough to supply me with figures concerning the operation of the move-on powers since they were inaugurated in September 1989. If he has no objection, I propose to table that document. He does not say otherwise; so I assume that he has no objection.
MADAM SPEAKER: You will have to seek leave.
MR HUMPHRIES: I seek leave to table this document, Madam Speaker.
Leave granted.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .