Page 2767 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 6 June 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
basis. We talk to them about this serious issue our police face with violence and assault in Civic. We tell them what the Canberra Liberals are trying to achieve. Not one police officer I have spoken to out on the beat thinks it is a bad idea. All of them support it. The AFPA support it. So the people in the know support it. I am sure the police families would support it. So who does not? Who does not want these extra protections for police? Who does not think it is a good idea? I will tell you who does not—the Greens, and the government.
I am very disappointed that this legislation will not get up today. I think it would have sent a very clear message to our community and to our police that we support them, that we think the people out there that are assaulting them, that are stalking them, that are committing other criminal offences like affray, need to be sent a message that the people who keep us safe while we sit comfortable at nights in places like this, the people who are out there on the street putting their lives in danger to support us, have every right to be protected. There was an opportunity here today for us to make those police out on the street safer, and that opportunity has been rejected by Mr Corbell and Mr Rattenbury.
I commend Mr Seselja’s bill. I commend his leadership in this area and his passion. I think it is a damn shame that a very good piece of legislation is going to be knocked back by the Greens and by the Labor Party. But we will continue to fight. I know Mr Seselja will continue to fight on this issue. We will no doubt take it forward to the election and we will give the people the choice—do you support the police or do you not support the police? Do you want to protect those that keep us safe or do you want to keep them in a position where they continue to be in harm’s way? That is the choice we have here tonight, and that will be the choice for people in October.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (5.28), in reply: It was as a result of a number of discussions that we had with police themselves that we brought this legislation forward. The feedback we were getting from police was that the current legislation was inadequate and that they were concerned about the increasing number of assaults. We have outlined some of the figures in relation to police assaults, and they are disgraceful. The feedback we got from our police was that they are underreported, because under the current regime police often do not even bother to report assaults against them because they do not feel they are going to be backed up in any serious way. They are sick to death of criminals and violent offenders getting away with assaults on police officers and getting nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
The Canberra Liberals do not believe that is a tenable position to put our police officers in, a position where they are not given the backup they need, and they are not given by this place the respect and backup they deserve while doing one of the most difficult jobs in our community. It is disingenuous in the extreme to say, “Well, why not others?” If you feel passionate about it, bring that forward. But we would say this: why not the police? What is the argument against the police getting this kind of protection? We ask police officers to face the most violent and dangerous people in our community. It is police officers who go and face them; it is not politicians. Politicians do not have to go out there at night and take on drug-affected people, violent people, people who, in some cases, want to do harm to others. We ask our police to do that job, and we should give them the backup when they do that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video