Page 5136 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
very often at all; in fact, the incident in the watch-house about four years ago is the most recent to my knowledge—and we have a strong and transparent mechanism of accountability when it comes to the use of force.
The government’s position in relation to tasers is this: the government is very comfortable with the existing arrangements where tasers are available to specialist police trained in their use. The government acknowledges and understands that ACT Policing will keep these matters under review and that they will analyse whether or not there is a need to expand the use of tasers to a broader range of officers.
There is a range of options open to police in that regard. For example, they may not choose to expand the use of the tasers to all general duties police, although that is a view supported by the police union. There are increments of change in between, including the availability of tasers to other more senior police officers in command of general duties police, so that the option is available should it be needed, perhaps in a more timely manner than the manner that is available through police in SRS, but not available as widely as it would be if it was distributed to all general duties officers. These are all options that the police should quite properly keep under consideration.
The government’s view is that, whilst we do not rule out the expansion of the deployment of tasers to other police officers within ACT Policing, any such expansion must be justified on the grounds of public and/or police safety and must be supported by the evidence. We will wait and see what the outcome of the assessment by ACT Policing is. I have had a discussion with the Chief Police Officer and with the AFP Commissioner, and we have agreed that any decision about any potential expansion of the use of tasers will only be made after there has been consultation between the three of us—that is, the Chief Police Officer, the AFP Commissioner and me as the ACT minister for police. I think that is a constructive and sensible way to move forward in this matter.
ACT Policing have a demonstrated record of proven and responsible deployment of tasers. I would expect that that same level of caution would be applied to the consideration of any need for the wider issue of tasers to officers.
In conclusion, I simply draw to members’ attention the existing procedures in relation to the use of tasers. Indeed, the government’s response to the Assembly’s Standing Committee on Legal Affairs in its 2008 report on police powers of crowd control noted:
ACT Policing will continue to monitor the effectiveness of TASERs as a less-than-lethal force option, within the ACT and other jurisdictions. However, ACT Policing will retain the option of expanding the availability of TASERs if this is considered operationally appropriate. ACT Policing affirm that changes to the use of TASERs will occur only after thorough testing and consideration.
I think that is a sensible approach. That remains ACT Policing’s approach, and it is an approach that is supported by the government.
A range of the proposals put forward by Mr Rattenbury are not acceptable to the government; in particular the proposal that the Assembly should be the decision
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video