Page 5150 - Week 12 - Thursday, 27 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
say that this is a gross misuse of police resources and of taxpayers’ money. The police in the UK are investigating and are preparing a report.
The attorney has responded in writing to Mrs Dunne’s concerns and made a number of important points. Firstly, the detailed legislation that is in place for the existing three schemes and the scheme proposed today is specifically intended to stop the kind of misuse of police powers that has occurred in the UK. There are numerous checks and balances in place that apply to the approving and monitoring of the four schemes. Related to these checks and balances are the annual reports that are required under the law to be issued for each of the four schemes. The reports go to quite a level of detail and report the number of times the legislation was used in the previous 12 months and the circumstances in which it was used.
I think these annual reports position the ACT very well to guard against the kind of behaviour we have seen in the UK. The public and members of the Assembly are able to see in quite some detail how the police have been using their powers, to ensure they do not creep over into inappropriate use.
The second issue that the attorney has written back on has confirmed the Greens’ understanding of the bill, because he states in his letter that it is intended to cover only police who appear as witnesses, not those who appear as defendants. So the UK example should not eventuate in the ACT because the officer would not be eligible for a certificate and would be required to appear in court under his or her real name.
I am aware that Mrs Dunne was contemplating whether we should delay the debate in light of the developments in the United Kingdom, but I think that, whilst the UK report may inform our further thinking here, the answers provided by the attorney and the Greens’ analysis indicate that we can move forward today with confidence. But we of course should monitor the findings of that inquiry in the UK and the applicability of any of those findings to the ACT and then consider whether we need to take any further course of action. But at this point I am satisfied that the law as it is designed should not result in the sort of situation we have seen in the United Kingdom given the other checks and balances we have in place.
I did find the story out of the UK very disturbing in the sense that the police were targeting political movements. Frankly, in the grand scheme of things I would have thought they would have better things to do with their time than to target groups who are simply putting a political point of view. I would like to think that that sort of thing does not happen in the UK. However, I do remember incidents in the 1990s, in Victoria certainly, where there was a degree of this going on. I would like to think that in Australia we have moved past that. Given the amount of time and emphasis that has been put on to more serious threats in public discourse, I trust that that is where the police are focusing their resources as well.
In conclusion, the Greens support this bill because it allows for a targeted approach to investigating crime. It builds on other recent reforms and is a robust way to address the community safety issues that the police seek to address on our behalf.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development, Minister for Territory and Municipal Services and Minister
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video