Mr DOWLING (Redlands—LNP) (3.35 pm): Today I rise to speak to the Police Legislation Amendment Bill 2010, which seeks to amend three bills—the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, the Police Service Administration Act 1990, the Prostitution Act 1990 and Prostitution Regulation 2000. This regulation should provide police with yet another tool in their arsenal when it comes to preserving good order in our community. I think those comments have been echoed on both sides of the House.
On-the-spot fines for certain offences—public nuisance, public urination and associated offences—can only be seen as a positive thing. While no-one condones those offences, this new strategy has the ability to save time for our officers, and I think that is vital. That is certainly the overriding reason why I am standing here. The officers will no longer need to leave their active duty or their front-line activities to process relatively minor offences. I can see that there will be significant time savings certainly for two of my communities that have only one police officer—they are the communities of
The community has been very vocal. They have raised safety concerns for a long time on those southern
The on-the-spot trial has had some very mixed results. I quote from an article in the Courier-Mail by Anna Caldwell dating back to 16 June 2010, where she said—
Thousands of people could be slapped with fines for offences that would never have attracted police attention in the past under sweeping reforms to police powers.
I am pleased to say that the public commentary seems to be coming down on the side that this is a good idea, that this is a positive initiative, not only because of time saving but because police realize that their time is valuable and they cannot be running off arresting people for these relatively minor offences, but they are still important issues to be addressed.
During the trial period, 1,800 people were fined for urinating and being drunk and disorderly in public places in the two trial areas of Townsville and
No doubt they will be caught up in the fullness of time. My concern is with the SPER process. I am on the record many times saying that I have great concerns that people could lose their licences and things of that order and not actually be aware of it happening through the SPER process. I have never been a fan of that process.
The comments in the blogs are quite interesting. I will share with the House some of the blogs that were posted on the article, as recorded by Anna Caldwell. They state—
Since swearing and verbal abuse are not part of free speech, these powers are appropriate. As long as our right to free speech and orderly dissent is not undermined, this is a good policy.
This is a great idea—so long as its enforced.
yay good on anna bligh! love it! finally doing something useful
fantastic! finally something that will clean up the scum off our streets, good on you.
That is a common thread throughout. So I think it is obviously a step in the right direction.
Then we get the flip side of the argument which is about the nanny state or the nanna state. The blogs include: ‘Why does everyone want to live in the nanna state? I’m leaving here.’ and ‘Every year it is another law against life.’ I am editing these because some of the comments are colourful, to say the least. There was an interesting comment that I read from one submitter. They stated, ‘I hope Kevin’— and by Kevin they are referring to the former Prime Minister—‘does not come home to visit.’ As we know, Kevin has something of a reputation for a colourful turn of phrase.
The community expectation is that we should not have to suffer this obscenity every time we venture out in public—whether we are walking down the street or are in a shop, at the beach, at a concert or at schools et cetera. It is unacceptable. It seems to me that over the last many years we have gradually allowed our standards to be watered down. This is definitely a step in the right direction.
Some of the language used every day by people in public places is offensive. I am thinking now of the obscenities that children hear when walking down the street or when they are at a cinema or in a shopping centre. This type of thing is a step in the right direction.
Family values and a more harmonious community can come out of this if that law is exercised. Some of the comments posted on the blog were along the lines: ‘It’s got to be a step in the right direction.’, ‘Bringing them into line.’, ‘It’s a great thing as long as it is enforced.’ Those kinds of comments are being echoed through the community.
It is time efficient and it appears to be a cost-effective use of resources. There are three groups of thinking on this. There is the nanny state group, the revenue raiser group—which was a predictable line of comment—and the ‘at last the government is doing something’ group.
I can only echo the sentiments made by the shadow minister, the member for Gregory, and other members of the House on both sides in commending the police for the great work they do in very difficult circumstances. Over this last weekend a number of officers were working down at the Armor All Gold Coast 600. It was a perfect venue where these strategies could have been utilised. There were a significant number of arrests. There were incidents around the track and around the precinct.
Mr Reeves: Most of them were the same as happens week in and week out.
Mr DOWLING: I take the interjection. They made up part of the press recording of the Armor All Gold Coast 600. What I was going to say was that the police who were on site were doing a fantastic job. That was the point I was making, Minister. The police were a strong presence and they were enjoying the atmosphere of the crowd. It was a well managed event and a well managed crowd. I certainly enjoyed it.
That is the sort of event where we need to be vigilant. We need to ensure that we do not allow society to degrade any further. I again echo the comments of those members of the House who support the fine work of our police officers.