Page 5139 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
government’s amendment and we support that. It is important to note where that decision should be made.
The Greens have called for an increased use of de-escalation and non-weapons-based training. This is an important aspect of any police force. I agree with that. I am sure that the Chief Police Officer would agree with that and that the minister would. As our police have already demonstrated through the fact that they do not actually have tasers in the front-line, they obviously use those techniques before having to move to more forceful measures.
Once again, I have confidence in our police force to determine what are the appropriate de-escalation techniques, what are the methods of training, what are the best models and practices to use. I do not believe that it is the role of the Assembly to determine what those techniques should be. I think that they are operational matters that are best determined by the police force.
So we are comfortable with the debate and we are very comfortable to debate police techniques, be they the use of tasers or other measures in this place. But I do not think it is appropriate that the Assembly should be making such decisions. It would be unusual. Certainly, thinking back to my Defence Force days, for example, it is appropriate that, as we see now, there is a debate in the parliament about Afghanistan. But when it comes to who should make the decision about certain aspects of deployments and so on, it rests with the executive arm of government. But we would not be expecting the commonwealth parliament to be making decisions about, for example, the rules of engagement. They are operational matters.
I do not want to pre-empt any decision or any recommendation that comes forward from the Chief Police Officer, but it is important to note that tasers can be a very valuable tool in law enforcement. All measures, whether it be the use of force that comes from a police officer’s baton, or grappling, through to the use of firearms, obviously come with some element of risk. We cannot discount that. We need to acknowledge this but that does not mean that they are necessarily appropriate tools that can be used by police.
For example, capsicum spray can be affected by the wind and the environment. It can affect innocent bystanders. I refer to what WA Police Commissioner Karl O’Callaghan said about the use of batons. He said: “Remember that most baton strikes cause very significant damage and it takes months to recover from those as they cause joint breaks, serious bruising and bone breaks. If you get sprayed with a capsicum spray it has a 40-minute to one hour recovery period.”
There is no hierarchy of weapons as such and it is really for the police to determine on the ground as the situation dictates what is the appropriate use of force—from grappling, use of their voice, through to the use of a firearm. A taser simply provides the police with another tool that can be used appropriately given the circumstance. That really can only be a decision made by the police officer on the ground as a result of the correct techniques that he has been rigorously trained in.
Academics and the WA report have raised concerns that if you use tasers, essentially there may be “mission creep”—officers get used to the idea of the weapon and use it
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video