Page 2764 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 6 June 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
with this bill. It is one the attorney has spoken about to some extent already. And that is the unanswered question: what about all the other jobs in the ACT where people go out and do work that is in the public interest but put themselves in danger? I particularly think about ambulance drivers and paramedics but also nurses and even teachers. These are all jobs that are vulnerable to abuse by members of the public.
The proposed bill effectively picks and chooses winners by saying that where police are the victim the offence is 25 per cent worse and the offender should go to prison for longer. What does that say about those other jobs? What about the ambulance staff who are assaulted late at night when they go into dangerous situations? Again, should they be put in the same category as police? Some have even suggested the police are in fact better protected because of their training and the equipment they carry to protect themselves in such situations. You get into some very interesting comparative discussions here.
The Australian Federal Police Association were one organisation who were supportive of the bill at the inquiry. As the association representing the interests of police officers, their views on this are important. The committee clearly listened and took on board the evidence from the AFPA but ultimately decided that the new law would not achieve its aim and reduce assaults against police. One unresolved issue raised at the inquiry by the AFPA is whether an alternative approach to this issue should be explored. The comment made by those giving evidence on behalf of the AFPA was:
The AFPA is of the opinion that the ACT legislature must seriously consider the creation of a specific offence of assaulting an officer of the Crown.
This is a completely different pathway for the ACT to head down and would not work in conjunction with the current proposal from Mr Seselja. It really does need to be one or the other and it does not seem that it can be both. As the AFPA suggest, I too think this is an issue that the Assembly should seriously consider. The Greens would be guided by the same overarching principle of what will work to reduce assaults against police. If there is evidence that the alternative approach could reduce assaults, we would also be interested to explore whether a broader definition could be used which would capture other jobs that are working in the public interest. I have already touched on the example of paramedics. My door is certainly open to discuss the issue with the AFPA. I have written to them on the matter and am hopeful of arranging a meeting to discuss the issue. But the issue for decision today is the bill before us. As I said, the Greens will not be supporting the bill for the simple reason that it will not achieve what it sets out to do.
I would like to conclude by making some comments on the number of assaults against police because there have at times been claims that assaults are on the rise. The evidence and data provided to the committee by the Chief Police Officer paints quite a different picture. The Greens do want the facts to get in the way of a good story on this occasion. What the Chief Police Officer told the committee was that assaults on police in the ACT were relatively stable and that in recent years they have been declining by small numbers.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video