Page 5166 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
essentially, a jibe around my trying to draw a sensational link. I sought to do nothing of the type. I simply was underlying the fact that there is the potential—and it has been demonstrated—for misuse of these weapons or abuse of power, as I think the attorney went on to describe it.
I wrote myself a note: “Whilst I was not seeking to draw a sensational link, we have seen an incident of the abuse of power with capsicum spray”—or OC spray, as the minister referred to it—“in the ACT.” The minister did go on to highlight that point; so I do not need to particularly draw it out again. Again, that is clearly not the accepted standard of behaviour in the ACT police force. The minister spoke about the disciplinary action that was taken in that instance. And it is, I think, a good outcome that that matter came to public light and was dealt with.
My simple observation is that these matters can happen in the ACT and in fact have happened. We are not immune, unfortunately, to these abuses of power. No matter what directions the Chief Police Officer gives, no matter what the expected standards of behaviour are, unfortunately these incidents do take place from time to time. So we simply cannot dismiss them by saying, “They only ever happen in other jurisdictions.” We have the good fortune in the ACT that they are not common but that does not dismiss that we should be concerned about the worst-case scenarios.
I would like to move an amendment to Mr Corbell’s amendment because the Greens do not believe that we should give up on the need for greater transparency and accountability. I accept that our call for an Assembly debate will not be agreed to. That is clear from the comments that members have already made and I think that is a shame. But my amendment would reinsert the requirement for the government to report on:
(ii) the current level of de-escalation and non-weapons based training provided to all ACT Police;
(iii) details of the taser training provided to members of the Specialist Response and Security Tactical Response team and how this compares to other jurisdictions’ training requirements;
(iv) the use of force continuum adopted by ACT Police; and
(v) all use of force incidents involving a handgun, taser, oleoresin capsicum spray or baton;”.
In moving to attempt to reinsert these requests into the final motion, I note that the government agreed in 2008 to publish the use of force continuum. That is not to be found on the ACT police website to date. I am happy to stand corrected but certainly we have not been able to find it. The 2008 response also undertook to report annually on trends in use of force but this information does not appear in the ACT Policing annual report. The remainder of our amendment calls for information relating to details of the training provided to our ACT police force. I would be surprised if the government has any problem with that information being provided.
So in the spirit of transparency, I would urge members to support this insertion so that we can have that information available to us. Whether or not the Assembly considers
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video