Page 5366 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It was highlighted in the media and in the annual reports hearings that this government is not doing everything it can to support the work of ACT Policing. The Canberra Times stated in relation to this issue that ACT Policing would issue more on-the-spot fines for crimes like public drunkenness, vandalism and public urination if the ACT government had an automated infringement system in place. The 2010-11 annual report also states:
… this is both an administrative and financial burden not normally carried by police agencies.
The Chief Police Officer stated in the annual report hearings that the processing of the on-the-spot fines takes up to 300 man hours a year. I am sure that we are all in agreement that we would prefer to see those 300 hours being spent out in the community rather than sitting behind a desk processing paperwork. Unfortunately, Mr Corbell could not give a commitment to when a system would be operational that would address this issue, even though on-the-spot fines have been in the legal framework for over three years. In fact, this would be an important time to reflect on the original failings of this government in relation to on-the-spot fines.
In April 2008, Mr Corbell announced that the police would have the ability to implement on-the-spot fines for the offences I spoke of earlier. However, it was revealed in 2009, in November, during annual report hearings, that not a single on-the-spot fine had been issued. This was a 19-month delay after the original announcement. This was because the minister, Simon Corbell, had failed to ensure that police actually had the ability to administer the fines. Now, over three years after the minister’s announcement, there are still problems for police in using this system and it is still not as effective as it could be.
This is not the only area where the government has failed ACT Policing. I foreshadow that I will be moving amendments to Ms Porter’s motion today that address the issue of police assaults. These amendments highlight that there were 48 assaults against police, including 17 incidents of spitting in the last year. As you will recall, Mr Assistant Speaker, and the Attorney-General will recall, we addressed this issue in annual report hearings this year and I take the opportunity to again quote the Chief Police Officer, Roman Quaedvlieg, on this issue:
… my impressions, from 20 months or so in this role, are that there are instances of what I call mobbing assaults—multiple offenders on one police officer. The issue of spitting on police causes me some grave concern in terms of blood-borne and saliva-borne viruses. I think it is incumbent upon us to understand a bit more how the levels of severity are increasing or otherwise.
We must act to protect those who put their lives at risk to protect the community. The Chief Police Officer obviously holds strong concerns about this issue and I would argue that there is no better authority on the needs of police on the ground than he is. This is why the second amendment circulated in my name calls on the Assembly to increase the penalties for assaults committed against police in the conduct of their duties. This is reflective of the exposure draft bill that was circulated by the Canberra Liberals and that amends the Crimes Act to provide tougher penalties for offences
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video