Page 5132 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
These are simply some incidents. They are obviously incidents at the more concerning end of the spectrum. The reason I bring them up is not to suggest that this is how ACT Policing officers are conducting themselves—just to be clear. But they highlight why a debate in the Assembly is a matter that is important.
I would like to reflect on the proper role of the Assembly and what is and is not worthy of debate in the chamber, given some of the comments that members have been reported as making in the media in the last couple of days.
Given the examples that I have highlighted, the Greens do believe that taser use is worthy of debate. One aspect of the debate would be the thresholds at which police are authorised to use force. Again, the Western Australian Crime Commission report highlights—and has a very illustrative table in its report—the different thresholds that are applicable across Australia for police to be allowed to threaten the use of a taser and then actually use the device. It is quite illustrative to see that those thresholds are very different across this country, ranging from what is described as a low threshold through to a high threshold. That is a matter of public policy, and it is the duty of this place to debate matters of public policy, particularly when it comes to the thresholds at which police are authorised to use force, because these thresholds are the authorisation we as a society give to police officers to use force.
If members of the Assembly believe that we do not have a responsibility to participate in that discussion, I find that very surprising. On a daily basis, we in the chamber debate the appropriate thresholds for government interventions in the lives of the community. There are few more direct interventions than a taser, and I think the Assembly has a very clear role in overseeing those thresholds.
A second aspect of the Assembly debate would be discussion of the right level for disclosure once a taser has been fired. There has been some interesting commentary of late on what the right level of disclosure is. Is it in annual reports, at one extreme, or is it online reporting within a very short period after the incident occurs, with public access to taser-cam footage? A number of the devices have an optional extra, a camera, essentially a webcam-style device, that records any incident when the taser device is used and provides an opportunity to scrutinise the use of that device. The Assembly should have a role in that debate as well. What level of disclosure do we believe is appropriate?
These are the reasons I have brought this motion forward today. This motion simply seeks to ensure that we do not just have a rollout of devices in the ACT, but that they are discussed by the elected members in the ACT, given the examples I have highlighted and the level of public disquiet about the potential impact of tasers. I have not touched on it today, but there have been a number of deaths reported linked to the use of these devices, both in Australia and overseas. I think there is a level of community disquiet.
If you are a good, law-abiding citizen, you would not have anything to be concerned about, but the example I cited of the 16-year-old being tasered in a Brisbane park because she would not move on while she waited for her friend to be treated by an
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video