Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2010 Week 12 Hansard (Wednesday, 27 October 2010) . . Page.. 5168 ..


The other question I would ask is this: the amendment from Mr Rattenbury seems to be about seeking information. Has Mr Rattenbury sought a briefing from the minister? The minister may be able to answer that question. We in the opposition are readily criticised by the Greens when we ask for information in our motions. They say: “Why haven’t you sought a briefing? Why didn’t you ask for a briefing on this matter?” I grant leave for Mr Rattenbury to clarify for the members of the Assembly whether he has sought and received a briefing. I am sure that these are the sorts of questions that he could ask in a briefing and receive answers on from the Chief Police Officer, who, I am sure, with the ministerial staff, would be happy to oblige where appropriate. If he has not done that, I would also ask that the Greens in future desist from demanding that we seek a briefing when we call on these sorts of issues—if they want to have the same level of consistency in this place. You might want to clarify, Mr Rattenbury, if you have indeed sought and received a briefing on this issue.

MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (3.20): The government will not be supporting this amendment. I think it is appropriate that in the first instance Mr Rattenbury seek advice from the Chief Police Officer. I would be happy to facilitate such a briefing. The Chief Police Officer, I know, is always willing to provide advice and detailed explanations of how the police go about their matters, particularly in relation to this issue. I would be delighted to arrange that if Mr Rattenbury is interested in pursuing that.

The proposal that Mr Rattenbury puts does not at this stage, I believe, warrant the action that he is seeking. In the first instance, it is best addressed through a more detailed briefing from the Chief Police Officer. The Chief Police Officer may also be able to provide some further context and explanation through a range of procedures and protocols that would not be able to be provided in the context of the material Mr Rattenbury is seeking. That is why I suggest that course of action as an alternative.

I note that Mr Rattenbury is also raising his concerns about the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Legal Affairs 2007 report Police powers of crowd control and the government’s response to the recommendations. I note his criticisms there, but I am not sure whether those criticisms are warranted. I thank him for providing these papers to me. I think you passed these to me, Mr Rattenbury, and I thank you for doing so.

First of all, in relation to recommendation 2, the recommendation was:

… that the AFP prepare a version of the commissioner’s order number 3 to release to the public.

The government did not agree to that recommendation as it contained operational strategies relating to the use of force. However, the government did agree to republish the national guidelines for incident management, conflict resolution and the use of force. My understanding is that that has occurred, although it may be the case that Mr Rattenbury’s office has not been able to find it, in which instance I will ensure that that matter is rectified.


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video