Page 660 - Week 03 - Thursday, 15 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Incidentally, we will not be treading water between now and 31 May 2007, because we will be responsive where we can. Where deficiencies have been identified and we can fix them, they will be fixed. I look forward to whatever results the committee may come up with but, of course, the government will need to do a response to that report. That response will take a bit of time. That response will need to be considered by the Assembly. If the Assembly had in mind that the response could be adjourned and further discussion happen later on down the track, quite frankly, whilst I think that conversation within the context of the parliamentary debate is a very good idea and quite welcome, I am not going to wait to implement changes which we hope will result in a responsive network in October of this year.
Finally, let me make it clear that security on the buses is an issue that I take seriously, but let me correct a newspaper report of this morning. Mr Pinkas from the TWU did not listen to what I said about police travelling free on the buses. I said that I wanted uniformed police to travel free. At the moment, any police officer can travel free, whether they are distinguishable or not. The point about free travel for police is that they are visible and other passengers can see that they are police officers. There is no point to the concession if they simply look like any other passenger.
For members’ benefit, if a police officer identifies himself or herself to the driver by the production of a badge, that is sufficient identification. On the one hand, that is all right because, in effect, we have, if you like, unofficial police officers under cover, as it were, in plain clothes, and they can actually intervene if they see something happening. But having a uniformed officer sitting on the bus will have a deterrent effect. So we are talking to the police about saying to the police officers that if they want free travel we want to see them in uniform.
MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bus marshals, Mr Hargreaves?
MR HARGREAVES: Not at all, Mr Deputy Speaker, because bus marshals are generally gung-ho, pistol-toting people—transit police; somewhere between the Australian Federal Police and the Red Angels of the Bronx. As Mr Gentleman would know from his contact in a previous life with AFP guys in his protective services capacity, our police officers are members of the community; they walk with us every day. What we are saying to them as they walk with us every day is that, if they wear their uniforms, people do not muck around, they give them a wide berth, if they are going to be recalcitrant or if they are going to be miscreants.
Mr Mulcahy: Why won’t they go into pubs and nightclubs?
MR HARGREAVES: Mr Mulcahy asks a question through you, I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker. In fact, he was looking in your direction at the time, let me observe. He is good like that. They go into pubs and clubs, but they are not permitted to drink. But, more importantly, there is an unsavoury element in some of the pubs and the clubs which would go looking to pick a fight with a police officer in those particular venues. I trust the judgment of the police in this regard, absolutely. I would like to see a bit more visibility on the buses. If you are going to take a $6 ride to work and back for free, we will have for free a $6 look at your uniform when you do it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .