Page 726 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 1 April 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The government is particularly concerned that the bill recommends that the offences of fighting and indecent exposure should be liable to an on-the-spot fine. Where fighting has occurred, the gravity of the offence will often not be obvious at the scene; where police officers tender a report when fighting has occurred, officers will consider whether a more serious offence has occurred. The fact that there may be a victim to a potential assault adds to my unease and the government’s unease at having police handing out fines for this type of behaviour. If the incident is minor in nature, the simple presence of the police will often be enough to restore public order; in those situations, no further police involvement is required aside from cautioning those involved. If a more serious offence has occurred, police will have the ability to charge that person. I believe that is the appropriate balance.
Indecent exposure is clearly not an appropriate offence for a fine, given that it is a serious offence. I draw members’ attention to the fact that there is the very real possibility that this type of offence may be part of a pattern that could include far more serious offences of a sexual nature. It is well understood that indecent exposure can be part of a pattern of offending which may indicate or occur concurrently with more serious types of sexual offences. It is not appropriate that it is simply dealt with by way of an on-the-spot fine. This is underscored by the fact that ACT Policing and other jurisdictions class this offence as a sexual offence. The government does not accept that there should be on-the-spot fines for sexual offences.
That is why the government has established a new offence of “urinating in a public place” to deal with that specific concern without facing the possibility that people who may be involved in far more serious sexual offences get away with an on-the-spot fine for indecent exposure.
In conclusion, those are the issues of concern to the government in relation to Mr Stefaniak’s bill. It is not a matter of not trusting the police; it is not a matter of not having confidence in the judgement they exercise. Police exercise very significant judgement in a range of matters, and they do so with the highest level of professionalism and integrity. The issue of concern to the government is that the law is workable and there is no provision for the law to be used in manners which are inappropriate.
We believe that the proportionate and considered response the government has outlined in its Crimes Amendment Bill deals with the issues of most concern in our community right now. Consuming alcohol in public places, urinating, and defacing premises in our city centre and our entertainment precincts—those are the issues of most concern. When I have gone out and spoken to shopkeepers, the issue of concern is how their premises are routinely defaced, how they are routinely cleaning up their shop doors after every Friday night and Saturday night—and also that people are consuming alcohol in public places outside the licensed premises and the consequences of that behaviour. This allows us to tackle those very specific issues in a very direct and practical way. I am confident that the police will do so with good effect.
In relation to the broader issue of the use of alcohol in our society, that is clearly a much more complex policy debate. The government does not for a moment suggest
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .