Page 1272 - Week 04 - Thursday, 8 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
dog whistling that Mr Hanson was doing over there and the implications he was putting on me, I do not have any desire for, and I do not support, people getting away with these sorts of offences. I think there is a better way to go about this.
For Mr Hanson to say that I am interested in letting people get off the hook and I want people to be able to do these things with impunity is simply a falsehood. I have never said that. My discussion paper makes that perfectly clear. My remarks today have made that perfectly clear. I have outlined that in jurisdictions that have taken this approach, crime has not increased. I have also been able to cite examples today where, in fact, crime rates have decreased. I am not interested in an increase in crime in this town. Actually, I talk quite a bit about community safety in my remarks.
Unfortunately, we are not going to have a review, I think that is a shame. I do not think it is good enough to be passive about this. I do not think it is good enough to just say, “The police should make their own judgement.” As I said in my remarks, I think the police take the decisions for the best reasons they have at the time. But I think there is a role for the Assembly, on behalf of the community, to engage in a policy discussion about what expectations we have and to be clear with our police force about what community expectations are and ensure that they are aligned with the operations and the difficult decisions that the police are expected to take, usually under pressured circumstances. I absolutely acknowledge that, and that is why we should be having a cool, calm discussion so that the frameworks are very clear.
I think this will be a debate that will flow on. We are seeing other jurisdictions look at this more carefully and more openly than the ACT is willing to do. I think that is a positive thing. I have no doubt that this conversation will continue at another time. It is quite clear that the Assembly is not going to support this today and I think that is a matter of regret.
Question resolved in the negative.
Executive business—precedence
Ordered that executive business be called on.
Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission (Water and Sewerage Price Direction) Bill 2014
Debate resumed from 10 April 2014, on motion by Mr Barr:
That this bill be agreed to in principle.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (10.57): I thank the Treasurer for making a briefing possible on this bill. Madam Speaker, as you saw with the release on 2 April of the Auditor-General’s report on the price determination, this bill is the government’s way of addressing recommendation 3. To refresh the chamber’s memory, the recommendation suggested:
The Government should address the issues associated with the potential invalidity of the current price direction.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video