Page 5133 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
ambulance—I suspect that young woman probably considered herself to be a law-abiding citizen and certainly did not feel that her behaviour warranted being tasered. I suspect others may share that view.
I implore members of the Assembly today to look closely at the text of the motion. It simply seeks to ensure that there is information available, both to ourselves and to members of the community, so that we can have an informed debate, and it seeks to ensure that this place has an explicit conversation before these devices are rolled out for general usage in the ACT. I commend the motion to the Assembly.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (11.59): I thank Mr Rattenbury for moving this motion today. Contrary to his assertions, the government welcomes the debate about the use of tasers. The use of tasers is a matter of public interest. It has significant issues of concern for many in the community, and it is quite appropriate for the Assembly to debate the matter. But what Mr Rattenbury fails to put forward in his argument is that he wanted to go further than that. He did not want to just have a debate; he wanted the Assembly to be the decision maker as to whether or not tasers should be made available more broadly to police.
Quite frankly, that confuses the role of executive government and the role of a parliament. The parliament is not here to make decisions about the operational deployment of certain technologies. That is a matter for the executive and, in this case, for the Australian Federal Police. Whilst the government is quite happy to engage in a debate about the appropriateness of the use of tasers, about the framework within which taser use should occur in the territory and a range of other matters, we do not believe it is for the Assembly to decide in what circumstances tasers should be used. That is a matter for the police, and they can be held to account in the Assembly through the Assembly’s processes for their decisions.
The government shares some of Mr Rattenbury’s concerns regarding the use of force by police in the deployment of tasers. However, we believe that amendments should be made to the motion in order to more accurately reflect the current circumstances as they relate specifically to the ACT, and I will be moving an amendment shortly.
Currently, the Australian Federal Police—ACT Policing—only authorises the issue of electronic incapacitating devices, which include the taser product, for a very limited number of highly trained police officers. This includes ACT Policing specialist response and security tactical response teams and some specialist teams in the national AFP sphere. Tasers are but one of a number of options available to police in the use of force.
The AFP Commissioner’s orders define “force” as any verbal command or physical application to gain subject control. Aside from common law, police obtain the power to use force from legislation—primarily the Crimes Act 1900, the Crimes Act 1914, the Australian Federal Police Act 1979, the Criminal Code 1995, the Customs Act 1901, the Australian road rules and a number of other ACT acts.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video