Page 3747 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 29 October 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
expert in operational matters must be very closely considered. But it is also a matter of public interest. These are controversial devices. They have not been devices without problems. We know there have been instances of misuse. We know there have been deaths. It is reasonable for the government to keep a watching brief on the use of these devices.
I believe we have the balance right. There is no evidence, contrary to the assertions made by Mr Hanson, that the greater availability of tasers leads to less reliance on the use of firearms. Indeed the New South Wales Ombudsman’s report shows that there is evidence, in fact, to the contrary. And there is no evidence to support Mr Hanson’s proposition that the government in some way is obstructing or blocking ACT Policing’s position in relation to the use of tasers—none.
We have the balance right. We are fortunate as a community to have seen our highly trained and very capable police only resort to the use of a firearm on a handful of occasions over the last 10 years—four occasions since 2000. We know that the use of tasers by front-line sergeants has helped to support operational police going about their duties, and there is no recommendation to the government to change the current arrangements. If there is such a recommendation, the government will adopt the same considered and prudent approach that it has previously.
For all of those reasons, the government cannot support Mr Hanson’s motion today. I have circulated an amendment to Mr Hanson’s motion which I now move:
Omit all words after “That this Assembly”, substitute:
“(1) notes:
(a) tasers are only one of a range of tools available to police in a dynamic continuum of force model;
(b) tasers are currently available only to frontline sergeants and specialist police, who are extensively trained in their use;
(c) the occasions of use of tasers in the ACT are limited, demonstrating a use of force model that has at its core the fundamental notions of good communication, negotiation and the resort to a minimum amount of force reasonably necessary;
(d) any expansion in the use of tasers shall only occur on the grounds of improved public and/or police safety and be supported by evidence; and
(e) the use of tasers will continue to be kept under review by ACT Policing in consultation with the ACT Government.”.
MR HANSON (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (12.16): The opposition will not be supporting the amendment, but at this stage I would like to bring in the voice of the front-line police officers. I would like to acknowledge the presence in the chamber of Dennis Gellatly, who is the ACT Policing representative for the Australian Federal Police Association; it is great to see him here. His expression, which he has made
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video