Page 3817 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 8 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, even as I foreshadow this amendment, I recognise that there is a huge number of police officers in the ACT who resist that temptation to go for the easy fix, who work with the people and encourage them. I have seen many positive examples of police officers working with the community. But there are also those other examples that give the police a bad name, that get publicity and that raise the issue of civil liberties and human rights. Madam Speaker, I think it is important to understand that the argument put by the Attorney-General in introducing this Bill - that the balance in this was to ask the police officer for their name in return - is quite unrealistic. It is not so unrealistic for people like Mr Humphries, Mr Kaine, Mr Stefaniak or me, who would be very comfortable about asking a police officer for their number and the station from which they work. But, when we were 18, 20 or 22, there was an incredible difference in our relationship, our ability and our self-confidence. I think that that needs to be taken into account.
Madam Speaker, whilst I support the majority of the Crimes (Amendment) Bill and recognise that it is, effectively, a transfer of power from the Commonwealth, there is an issue here that was in the Commonwealth Act, and we are making a deliberate attempt to change from the Commonwealth Act. I think that is why we need to look at this issue in particular. We certainly need to recognise that it is different. There are reasons why the Commonwealth Act was different. The Federal Police, when doing Federal work, very rarely deal with offences other than indictable offences. However, it is important for us to take this into account and to remember that there is always pressure to whittle away at civil liberties. It is the way in which civil liberties are lost. Very rarely do we provide extra civil liberties to people. It tends to be the other way. It tends to be the case that we slowly whittle them away, there is a new outcry about crime, and then we provide more power.
On the issue of crime, Madam Speaker, we live in probably the safest city in the Western world. We live in an incredibly safe city. As I said to Mr Stefaniak earlier today, I would be very comfortable, at any time of the day or night, walking through Civic. I would have no problem whatsoever doing that by myself or, for that matter, with Mr Stefaniak. Obviously, I would feel more comfortable with Mr Stefaniak. We have to recognise that we live in a city. While we can protect civil liberties, that is what we should be doing. I would have thought that a Labor government that has prided itself on its protection of civil liberties would at least look favourably on this amendment. I certainly urge the Government to do so.
MR STEFANIAK (5.26): Madam Speaker, I want to respond to a couple of comments from Mr Moore. I do so, basically, as someone who was a prosecutor for nine years and defence counsel for about six years. I make these remarks purely in relation to Mr Moore's comments about his amendment. Firstly, this is quite different from move-on powers or anything like that. It is a totally different area of the criminal law. I think that everyone, except perhaps Mr Moore, realises that. He mentioned that power is very much in the hands of a police officer. That was certainly the case when he and I were growing up. If you did not do what a police officer told you, you would probably get a size 13 boot up the backside. That does not happen any more, simply because there are more constraints on police and also because the law has changed, attitudes have changed
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .