Page 3746 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 29 October 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
report noted that there was no reduction in a firearm being displayed—that is, being drawn or discharged—by New South Wales Police during the period under review, and that in fact there had been an increase in the number of occasions on which a firearm was drawn or discharged by New South Wales Police between 2009 and 2011, despite the fact that tasers had been made available to all front-line officers.
So it is simply not the case to assert that the broader availability of tasers will lead, as a matter of fact, to less reliance by police on the use of their firearm. It is not supported by the facts. It cannot be said that the availability of a taser would have prevented the need for a firearm to be used, and this is supported by the New South Wales Ombudsman’s report.
While the occasions on which a firearm is discharged in the ACT are very rare—in fact there have only been four occasions since 2000 when a firearm has been discharged by ACT police—it is important to draw to the Assembly’s attention that, of the four occasions on which a firearm was discharged since 2000, three of them occurred after the introduction of tasers. So this correlation that Mr Hanson attempts to draw—more tasers, less need to use firearms—simply does not stack up.
The government supports the current arrangements with regard to tasers. The government is confident that ACT Policing currently has the right balance. The Chief Police Officer has advised me he has no immediate plans to expand the use of tasers beyond sergeants to all front-line officers. Any such proposal would need to be operationally appropriate and be subject to some pretty thorough testing and detailed consideration, and I am confident that in those circumstances it would be.
Mr Hanson says that I am standing in the way of a decision implemented on the advice of the Chief Police Officer. Setting that to one side, let us see what Mr Hanson said about the government’s position on the availability and deployment of tasers back in 2010. He said:
The Chief Police Officer has not provided, as I understand it, advice to government that he requests or is seeking an expanded role for tasers.
But if he does go to the government, provides the evidence and argues that there is a case that tasers should be deployed further to the front line—I can envisage cases where that would be appropriate—I am comfortable to leave it to the minister and to the Chief Police Officer to determine that decision.
So there we have it. Back in 2010 Mr Hanson thought that it was entirely appropriate for there to be a discussion, consultation and a joint decision made between the Chief Police Officer and the minister for police. But today, all of a sudden, the position has changed. All of a sudden I am standing in the way of a decision and a recommendation that have been implemented on the basis of what the Chief Police Officer has told me.
The facts are that the use of tasers is controversial. It is a matter of public interest, and it is appropriate that the elected government is engaged in such discussions as to how tasers are used in our community. It is not purely a technical operational matter. It does have significant operational considerations, and the advice of those who are
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video