Page 1270 - Week 04 - Thursday, 8 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
in their car, hoon past the police at speed, giving them the finger, and there is nothing the police can do. That is what Shane Rattenbury wants. That is what he thinks is a good idea. Can you imagine the impact that would have on the safety of our community?
There is always an effect when you introduce legislation. Mr Rattenbury is saying that there would be fewer pursuits, and under his model there would be fewer pursuits. But what would be the effect of those fewer pursuits? I cannot give you an exact number, but I think we can all understand that we would be giving a green light to many more young hoons out there on our streets. What would be the impact of that? What would be the impact of people being allowed to do that? How many more car accidents would we see? How many more innocent people or, indeed, young men driving those cars would we see critically injured or killed as a result? The effect of what Mr Rattenbury is proposing, I think, would have a dire consequence in our community.
Given that this is where Mr Rattenbury stands—we know that is what he is trying to get, and he is trying to get some of his mates to come along to this committee to support his position—and given that we know the government’s position on this, and I support the government’s position, this committee would be a waste of time. This committee would really be an exercise for Shane Rattenbury to try and get people to come along to support his view—and to do what, to achieve what? If Mr Rattenbury wants to move legislation then he should do that. If he wants to convince his cabinet colleagues of the merits of constraining the police then let him do that, because he will not have my support. I am encouraged to hear, and glad to hear, that he will not have the government’s support.
Do not think for a minute, Madam Speaker, that if the evidence was contrary to what Mr Rattenbury is pursuing that he would then change his mind. What Mr Rattenbury says—and we have seen it so frequently—is this: “I look at the evidence. It’s evidence based.” Well, let me give you a very stark example, Madam Speaker, of what Mr Rattenbury does with committees that are evidence based. Mr Rattenbury is pursuing, with the government, a piece of planning legislation. That was put to committee. Every single person that submitted to that committee said, “Don’t do this legislation.”
Based on Mr Rattenbury’s principle, based on what he is saying and the reason we have to have this committee, he will now oppose that legislation because the evidence that has been presented says, “Don’t do it.” One hundred per cent of people that submitted to that committee said, “Don’t do it.” We know he will not; we know that he is still sticking by the legislation. The point is that Mr Rattenbury is trying to set up this committee simply to further a narrow ideological agenda, a piece of very poor policy and a piece of policy that would result in increased criminal activity on our streets, increased activity that I believe would result in more accidents, more injuries and more fatalities.
I support our police. I have faith in our police. They do an incredibly difficult job. It is a decision that they have got to make when they are out there, often at night, as to when to engage in a pursuit and when to call off that pursuit. I think it is remarkable, of the reviews that have been conducted, that they have got it right so often. So there is no crisis. There is no failure in what the police are doing. Mr Rattenbury is unable
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video