Page 5373 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
That is the purpose behind my amendments. I commend the amendments to the Assembly. The Greens will be supporting Ms Porter’s motion. As I said, we think it is valuable to reflect on good news in this place from time to time. These are welcome statistics for our community. They can increase the community’s sense of security and I think it is really important for people across Canberra to know that crime rates are falling and that our police are doing a great job on behalf of our community.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (11.58): The Canberra Liberals will not be supporting Mr Rattenbury’s amendments. I will address that first before addressing Mr Hanson’s amendments.
We heard some interesting logic from Mr Rattenbury as to why he did not want to support Mr Hanson’s amendments and why he is seeking to amend them. It is clearly a statement of principle. The question that Mr Hanson has put—that he is advocating and that we support—is that there should be increased penalties for assaults committed against police officers. It is a simple statement of principle.
If you accept that principle, you could deliver that in a number of ways. You could deliver it through a bill similar to what I have put forward as an exposure draft. You could no doubt do it in all sorts of other ways. But the question before the Assembly today is whether you support that principle—yes or no. If the answer is no, simply say that. If the position of the Greens and the Labor Party is, as it appears to be, that they do not believe there should be increased penalties, they should say that. That is a valid position to hold. It is one we disagree with, but you should be honest about that rather than pretending that you cannot support this today because it might lock you into a piece of legislation that you have not seen the detail of. That simply does not flow. You can support the principle and then argue about how you would put that principle into practice. By voting against Mr Hanson’s motion or by amending it and taking that provision out, the Greens and the Labor Party are saying that they do not support that principle.
We think it is a very important principle. We think it is a very important principle that we say this to police officers who go out on our behalf, who are engaging with some of the most violent and difficult people in our community, when we put them in harm’s way. Their job is to be in harm’s way; most other people in the community can walk away. We would encourage most other people in the community to walk away when they are faced with violent people. Where possible, we would say, “Walk away.” But to the police, we say, “Your job is to go and address that, to confront those people and to confront, in some cases, violent offenders.”
We believe that it is a very reasonable statement of principle that this Assembly says that we will back them up—because of that, because the police are given that special obligation on behalf of us all. That is what is being put forward by Mr Hanson. I commend him for his amendments. It is a very reasonable approach. The Labor Party and the Greens, in voting against it, are opposing that principle. They should be honest about that. They should be honest about the fact that they do not support that principle of backing up our police when they are in harm’s way.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video