Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (9 August) . . Page.. 2776 ..

Suspension of standing order 76

Motion (by Mr Moore ) agreed to, with the concurrence of an absolute majority:

That standing order 76 be suspended for the remainder of the sitting.

Clauses 6 to 8, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 9.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (10.38): Mr Speaker, the Labor Party will oppose the clause. Mr Speaker, this provision amends the move-on powers to allow the police officer exercising the powers to impose conditions about the route taken to leave the vicinity and to exclude return to the scene for up to six hours. I think the Assembly is very much aware that the Labor Party opposed the introduction of the move-on powers. If we must have move-on powers, perhaps you could argue that you should take the next step and do whatever you can to reduce any potential for conflict. However, the arguments which the Labor Party has been putting and insists on in relation to the instigation and use of move-on powers apply equally well to this amendment, which really is an extension very much of the arguments which we have consistently used around the adverse impacts and the inappropriate use of move-on powers.

There is no doubt that move-on powers can be used to single out particular groups. Once again, move-on powers have particular impact on young people; they have particular impact on groups such as young indigenous people. Youth advocates have advised members of this Assembly that young people, particularly indigenous and ethnic groups, are overtargeted by police because they congregate in public spaces. It is a feature of the lifestyles of so many of these groups that they meet together and they congregate together in public places, more often than not perhaps as a result of their circumstances and any disadvantage that they may suffer. There are often no other places for them to meet.

Move-on powers really do just shift the problem around to different locations. They do not address underlying problems in relation to disadvantage, issues around unemployment, boredom, substance abuse, homelessness and all those sorts of things that actually cause people to congregate in public spaces. One of the problems with these sorts of powers is that they do not assist the community or any form of community service, whether it is the police or others, to concentrate on some of the issues that lead to some of the problems that we do, unfortunately, experience in our public places. These provisions are opposed particularly by advocates for young people. They are opposed for good reasons. The Labor Party will not support this extension of the move-on powers.

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Attorney-General) (10.41): I note that the Labor Party's amendments are getting rid entirely of the move-on powers, because the amendments to clause 10-

Mr Stanhope: They are not my amendments, Bill; they are Ms Tucker's amendments.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .