Page 5129 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
officers in the ACT. The Greens believe that the level of public interest in this issue warrants that the debate take place if and when the government seriously consider such an expansion.
I am seeking the support of the Assembly in my call because I believe that there are significant risks associated with an expansion of the use of tasers and that we as an Assembly have a duty to be participating in the debates about the possible rollout.
We have a duty to inform ourselves of the facts and figures surrounding tasers and to participate in the debate in an informed way. It is not good enough for us to step to one side and waive the decision to the AFP Commissioner or the ACT minister for police because it is deemed an “operational police matter”. Yes, it is an operational matter, but it is an operational matter of significant importance and public interest.
The issue of tasers is of importance because Australia has witnessed a dramatic rollout of the devices in recent years. Some 7,000 of them have been purchased for police use in the last three years alone. Contrast this with just 10 years ago when no Australian police had them at all. With this dramatic increase have come substantial problems. The recent Western Australian Corruption and Crime Commission report makes for confronting reading. It found that since all general duty police officers were given tasers, injuries to police have risen 22 per cent and police use of hand guns has doubled. In those two statistics lies the reason that the Assembly should be involved in any debate around an expansion of tasers. Those statistics call into question the frequently used argument that tasers are a replacement for hand guns.
But tasers are about more than statistics; at the end of the day, they are about people—police officers and the people they come into contact with. The Western Australian report contained some confronting and disturbing footage of taser use on alleged offenders and members of the public. The text of my motion picks up on this when it notes:
… tasers have been used, contrary to policy, as a tool to enforce compliance with the confronting example of the unarmed, non-threatening man who was tasered thirteen times while surrounded by nine police officers for failing to comply with a strip search …
The footage contained in the report of this incident deserves to be looked at by anyone who makes public comment on tasers.
At this point I seek leave to table a document that provides the direct link to the video footage for the benefit of members who will be participating in this debate.
Leave granted.
MR RATTENBURY: I table the following paper:
Case Studies from the 2010 Report by the Corruption and Crime Commission on the Use of Taser® Weapons by the Western Australia Police.
Boiled down to its absolute core, the argument for tasers is that it is better to use a taser on someone than to shoot them with a hand gun. On the face of it, this is a good
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video