Page 792 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 8 March 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
some of the provisions there that allow police officers to seize vehicles and go to the residence of someone suspected of having engaged in a pursuit or failed to stop for a police officer are sensible. But with regard to the consequential changes that are going to be made within ACT Policing, I do have a concern.
The way it has been characterised to me is that there are issues with pursuits, and I agree with that, and that there are issues of safety, and I agree with that. That is why there are now protocols in place in ACT Policing with regard to pursuits. But the reality is that if someone has a broken tail light or whatever the issue might be, that is not the offence they have committed. The offence they commit that would then lead to a pursuit is, in essence, this new section 5C—the failure to stop for a police vehicle. As I have just discussed, that carries some very serious penalties, equivalent on the statute books to some pretty serious crime, such as assault occasioning actual bodily harm and so on with penalties that carry long prison terms.
The point is not that someone with a broken tail light is not considered to be a person that necessarily warrants some pursuit through the streets, but the problem is that if someone fails to stop for the police, if someone actually decides, “Yep, I’m not going to be stopping for the police,” they have a reason for doing that. By that very action, and with the passing of this legislation today, they have actually committed a very serious offence.
What the bill is saying is that the committing of a very serious offence will essentially be allowed to occur and the discretion for police officers to take action on our streets will be taken away from them. I would say we want to make sure police officers engage in a pursuit safely. As I said, they have those protocols already. But to take away their discretion means that with impunity people will be able to commit offences, be it what is being introduced today or other offences, and the police in many ways will be powerless to pursue those people if the Chief Police Officer brings in these changes.
It is a point of difference. I acknowledge that there are always in these matters arguments for and arguments against and I am not naïve to the very delicate balance and the desire we all have ultimately to make sure our roads are safe, our community is safe and, indeed, our police officers are safe. But on this issue I err on the other side and I would say that I would be supportive of a police force that is permitted to continue with protocols that currently exist that would allow pursuits to occur. I would not want to see the deterrent effect that those powers currently have on our streets, where people know that they may be pursued if they commit an offence, removed. If those changes do come in then, in essence, it is taking away that deterrent, and I think that that is problematic.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome this legislation today. I think it is good. I think it will help. I think that it will make a difference in terms of road safety. But I think the mooted consequential changes to be made to procedures to a large extent will negate the good work being done through this legislation.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Capital Metro, Minister for Health, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video