Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches

[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]

PUBLIC ORDER AND ANTI-SOCIAL CONDUCT BILL 2001

Mr Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

In bringing this bill before the House, I restate the message that the Northern Territory is a safe place to live and do business. Having said that, it is the responsibility of a government to continually review its laws to ensure that they continue to meet the needs of the community and contemporary social problems.

The purpose of this bill is to provide members of the Police Force and the Court of Summary Jurisdiction with preventative powers to maintain and preserve peace and social order. The fabric that binds our society together revolves around the right of every citizen to enjoy the freedom live in, participate in activities and use public facilities without fear or apprehension of being harassed by the, thankfully, small proportion of society who do not respect the freedom or rights of others. This bill will provide protection to, and the power to those people and the power to the Police and the Courts to ensure that peace and good order are protected and preserved.

The bill is presented in four parts. Part 1 contains the short title and commencement clause of the bill, and has the critical definitions for the bill. These definitions are, in effect, the foundation for the remainder of the bill.

The three main definitions are those dealing with ‘antisocial conduct’, ‘prescribed place’ and ‘public place’. The definition of antisocial conduct specifies the type of conduct which will enliven police powers. The conduct is that which is usually the subject of comment and criticism by reasonable people in society, and which usually attracts calls for police action. In the main, it is antisocial conduct in public places but also includes conduct in private places that can cause alarm or apprehension to people in the community. For example, if people in a front yard of a residential house are behaving in a loud, offensive, drunken and abusive way towards people passing in the street, then their conduct would be regarded as ‘anti-social conduct’, even though it does not occur on the street. This definition is relevant to both Parts 2 and 3 of the bill.

The definition of ‘prescribed place’ lists the places that are often frequent sources of complaint and regularly attract community concern, even though they may not always be public places. These places include shops, licensed premises, the vicinity of automatic teller machines, public parks, public recreation areas, service stations and malls. The definition of ‘public place’ is similar to the definitions found in other legislation, but with the addition of a clause that brings ‘private but unoccupied’ places adjacent to public places within the scope of the definition. This will enable members of police to take action against antisocial behaviour that occurs in places such as privately-owned vacant blocks that are regularly used by the public but are, in law, still a private place. This has been a grey area that has been difficult for members of police to act upon as often ‘public place’ laws cannot be applied to such places even though they may become a refuge for people engaging in antisocial conduct.

Clause 4 has been included to preserve all other laws that the police and courts may need to call upon to perform their respective duties in maintaining peace and good order in our community. The main effect of this clause is to preserve the police common law powers that legal advice has indicated are often the mainstay for common sense police action which has not been reduced to statutory powers.

Part 2 of the act comprises clauses 5, 6 and 7. Those clauses enable police to deal directly to prevent and stop antisocial conduct in public and prescribed places, and private places adjacent to public and prescribed places.

Clause 5 is the power to prevent or stop antisocial conduct and maintain public order. This clause will empower police to take preventative action if they form a reasonable apprehension that a person has engaged in, is engaging in or is about to engage in antisocial conduct. It is important to note that this clause also applies to persons engaged in antisocial conduct in ‘private places’ adjacent to a public place or a prescribed place. The effect of this is to allow law abiding citizens the freedom to go about their business without being harassed by antisocial individuals hiding behind the protection of their own walls.

This is a powerful piece of legislation but this bill recognises the rights of Territorians under international human rights laws to participate in peaceful expression, association and assembly. As such, it ensures the rights of peaceful, law abiding Territorians are not affected. It will however, give police the power to give reasonable directions to ensure that individuals or groups engaging in antisocial behaviour, remove themselves from any particular place. A failure to comply with the reasonable directions of the police will be an offence.

The bill also extends to the source of the antisocial conduct and includes goods being used to intentionally disrupt the peace of others. These goods could include such items as portable stereo devices or other recreational equipment being used in such a way that may frighten, alarm, cause distress, or interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of law abiding citizens. Police will be empowered by clause 6 to seize such goods. I might point out that these goods can be returned once the antisocial conduct has ceased, and there is no risk of it resuming.

The inclusion of Clause 7 will empower the police to request the name and address of people from whom goods are taken or who are given directions by the police. This is necessary to give effect to the seizure power, to enable the goods to be returned at an appropriate time and to ensure that the police have the identity of those people who are given directions in the event that later prosecution action is required. In all other instances the provisions of the Police Administration Act will apply with respect to any request for a person’s name and address.

Part 3 deals with ‘places of antisocial conduct’. This part will empower the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, upon the application of a member of the police force, to declare a place to be a ‘place of antisocial conduct’. Where the court declares a place to be ‘a place of any social conduct’, that order will have the effect of making the place a public place for the purposes of police action. The intent of this part is underpinned by the notion that the community has a responsibility to maintain minimum standards of social conduct that do not continually or repeatedly disrupt the lives of others in our community.

The rationale for the making of an order under Part 3 is that if people’s behaviour at a place is of such a poor standard that it continually or repeatedly disrupts the peace and amenity of the lives of those in the vicinity of that place, then those who are responsible for that behaviour forfeit the social and legal rights that are usually attached to private places. This is, of course, unless they recognise, upon the making of the order, that they need to alter their behaviour so as not to continue disrupting the peace or good order of the area.

Mr Speaker, if a place is declared by the court to be a place of antisocial conduct order under clause 9, special powers are then granted to police to assist in the restoring of peace and good order at that place. These powers will only be exercisable after an order of the court, and then the authorisation of a Superintendent of is also necessary. The bill also requires any direction given to people by police to be reasonable and along the same lines as the police could give in a public place.

It should be emphasised that there must first be a court order and secondly a Superintendent’s authorisation before police can take any action against those within the place of antisocial conduct.

The final section of the bill provides the Administrator with the power to make necessary regulations.

Mr Speaker, this is ground-breaking legislation but legislation that is necessary to make the Territory a better place for Territorians to live. Whilst some members of our community may consider this legislation to be restrictive, it is designed to confer preventative jurisdiction. As such, its provisions will protect rather than restrict the rights of the individual, and our community generally. This bill is designed to preserve the lifestyle that we in the Northern Territory hold so dear and as such, I commend the bill to honourable members.

Debate adjourned.


 

[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]