Queensland police 'move-on' powers are over the top

Move-on powers are mitigated only by the requirement that the move-on direction must be reasonable and not interfere with the person’s right of peaceful assembly. Policemen and women are also required to give reasons for the direction and to ensure there is no reasonable excuse for the behaviour. The bottom line is that increases in police powers need to be accompanied by proportionate increases in police accountability. Current measures to this end, like the requirement that every move on direction be recorded in the Register of Enforcement Acts, have proven largely ineffectual.

These laws do serve a legitimate purpose. Police perform a valuable public service by moving people who have been fighting in a public space in separate directions or removing a person near a primary school whose presence causes anxiety to reasonable parents. We need law enforcement that deters people from being abusive and offensive in public places.

Ross Musgrove, Media and Government Relations Officer for the Queensland Police Union, puts it plainly: “Police do not make the laws. They are employed by the state to enforce the law as it is legislated. Police are opposed to public nuisance. If they see someone creating a public nuisance then that person will be subject to the law. People committing a public nuisance ought to be dealt with in the way the law requires. If you are going to be critical, be critical of the laws, not the police. If you have a problem, go to your local member and get the government to change the law.”

Dr Walsh understands the view of Mr Musgrove, with one limitation: “I’ve had conversations with police prosecutors and they seem to say that these powers are important because they give police the capacity to intervene in situations where no other power exists to protect the public and to stop a situation from escalating. I support that, so long as that’s all the police are doing. So long as there isn’t interference in situations where there is no real reason that things are going to escalate, then I think the power is justified.”

Representing RIPS at this year’s ALP forum, Scott McDougall, Director of Caxton Legal Centre made clear the disproportionate impact of these laws on marginalised members of society. In his speech he highlighted groups particularly at risk: the homeless or very poor, young people, those with cognitive impairment and Indigenous people. Young people made up 60 per cent of people charged with public nuisance offences in Brisbane and a majority of those charged with public nuisance offences could be classified as very poor or homeless.

In a survey in 2005, Dr Walsh found that Indigenous services rated the operation of police move-on powers as the most common legal difficulty faced by their clients.

Dr Walsh believes “by increasing the scope of the move-on powers you’re facilitating more interaction between the marginalised members of the public and police officers. We’re worried that facilitating that initial contact gives rise to the possibility that people will be charged with contravening a police direction to move on and that the number of public nuisance offences will go up as a result of that initial interaction.”

In Lars’ view, “a major problem with the law is that charges of public nuisance can lead on to other more serious charges. Without police diplomacy, interactions with drunk, homeless or mentally ill people can easily escalate. When you consider the situation for Indigenous people, who maintain an uneasy relationship with police at the best of times, you can understand why these things flare up. Many Aboriginal people see the interference by police as racially motivated and when that is added to the mix, we sometimes see cases of serious assaults and consequent severe punishments.”

So how were these discriminatory, ill-defined laws allowed to pass? It is interesting to note that the government has pushed through this legislation without much widespread, candid debate on the matter. The issue of ensuring public safety is paramount to good governance. But when does the need for public safety outweigh the value of individual liberty? The timing of the government’s legislative reform was suspicious. The expansion to move-on powers law was introduced shortly after the Cronulla riots when the public was gripped by fear of street violence. Only the bravest politician would have been likely, at that time, to show their disapproval to reform which bolstered the ability for strict enforcement of law and order within this fine state.

Lars encapsulates the need for reform neatly. “When we look at disorderly offences, I think we need to be mindful that they need to be of such a level that they deserve to come under the scrutiny of the criminal justice system. We need to ask, are these laws really worth it and are they really dealing out a necessary punishment?”

More than that, we need to ask whether an active democratic state should leave its government to legislate with such reckless ambiguity. Protecting individual liberty is at the core of keeping Queensland a successful, healthy society. It would be wrong to let that liberty slip in the face of some vaguely worded law and order legislation.