Page 191 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 9 February 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Let us go with some of the initiatives that Mr Braddock talked about. I commend them. Let us also go with what he has described as the Jeremy Hanson easy, common-sense solution, because easy, common-sense solutions are what we should be about in this place.
He also suggested that more police will often lead to more crime. I have to say I have never heard that from anyone, ever. If Mr Braddock has evidence that more police on the ground is going to lead to more crime, I would be fascinated to see where that evidence comes from. It is certainly not what the chief officer says to me when he appears before committees. It is not what the AFPA are saying. Certainly, I do not get that from police where they come to me and say, “You know the problem with crime? There are too many of us police officers around here. If we had fewer police then that would solve the crime problem we have in Canberra.” If an MLA comes in here and thinks that the solution to crime is fewer police officers, that adding more police officers can lead to more crime, I think we get a sense of the problem of the Greens’ position on law and order.
He also says we need to change the character of our police force. If there ever was an attack on the character of our police force, perhaps that is it. You think that the more cops you have got on the ground, the more crime you have got and that the problem is the character of our police force. I would never assert that and I would hope that those opposite in the Labor Party would not.
Mr Gentleman and Dr Paterson seem to think that the problem here is the Canberra Liberals raising the issues that are highlighted in the ROGS report. If we report on the fact that we have now got the lowest satisfaction rate in Australia from people who had interaction with the police, that is because of us, apparently. You have a direct interaction with the police, you report that that is the lowest satisfaction rate in Australia, yet somehow it is not that we have not got enough police and it is not the government’s fault. Somehow the opposition is to blame. Apparently, we are out there scaremongering. The view is that this is politicising the issue, that this is rank politics that is being put forward by us and that we should apologise.
If there is someone that should apologise, it is Minister Gentleman and, I have to say, Dr Paterson because they suggest that what is being said here is rank politics and politicising the situation. My case is built on the quotes from the AFPA, the Australian Federal Police Association, the representative body of police, who are workers. I know that the government does not like to think of them as workers, but they are workers. It is the AFPA, their union, that say they do not have enough workers. Somehow those opposite think that is rank politics. If I am quoting the AFPA and you say that that is politicising it, that that is rank—whatever other slur you want to put on that—what are you saying about that? Why do you hate the AFPA so much? Why do you condemn them? Why do you say that they are just trying to politicise the situation for standing up for their members?
If it was the head of the CFMEU you would not say that. If any other union came into this place or said publicly, “Our workers are tired; our workers are overstretched. We do not have enough workers. Please give us more workers,” you would not be out
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video