Page 2762 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 6 June 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I note that this view was supported by the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety in its report, which states that a majority of the committee considered that the bill had significant flaws and that the most important of these was the reversal of the burden of proof away from the prosecution case and onto the defendant. The committee notes that this could give rise to unjust outcomes in criminal cases and that such limits placed on human rights by the bill are not reasonable. The committee recommended that the Assembly not support the bill on this basis.
Finally, the committee noted in its report that evidence tendered suggests that higher penalties will not prove effective in deterring assaults against police, for the most part, because they are not premeditated. This was supported in evidence given to the committee, including evidence from the Chief Police Officer. I agree with the committee and the Chief Police Officer on this point. The bill will have no effect on assaults on police in this regard as it does not address the real issue, which is that a defendant can still rely on the defence of self-defence where a police officer is acting in good faith.
The New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research published the findings of a study in the February 2012 crime and justice bulletin which suggests that increasing the length of stay in prison beyond current levels is less likely to impact on crime rates than factors such as increasing the likelihood of arrest and the simple fact of imprisonment. The study supports the view that any deterrent value or effect flowing from an increase to maximum penalties for offences against police is dependent on first successfully arresting and prosecuting such offences. This bill is a blunt instrument of punishment for what is a complex issue faced by police in the field. The explanatory statement to the opposition’s bill states:
The current laws have been proven inadequate or at least unworkable when dealing with assaults upon police …
And further:
… practical concerns and the desire of the community to provide extra protection for police officers when carrying out their duty.
The Liberals’ bill does not achieve these outcomes. It will not afford police officers greater protection. It might appear to the public that the Liberals are doing something in this space, but their bill is ineffective. The evidence of the police themselves and of other witnesses is clear in this regard. The bill is ineffective and assumes a simplistic and knee-jerk reaction from the public rather than the thoughtful and considered views that have been put forward in the committee inquiry. The government will not be supporting this bill today.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (5.13): The Greens will not be supporting this bill. As I said in a letter to the Australian Federal Police Association earlier this year, the Greens’ decision making on this issue is guided by what will work to reduce assaults
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video