Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Statutes Amendment (Assaults on Police) Bill STATUTES AMENDMENT (ASSAULTS ON POLICE) BILL Introduction and First Reading Introduction and First Reading The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:47): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 and the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988. Read a first time. Second Reading Second Reading The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:48): I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I introduce this bill today and I note that it reflects Family First's policy for some time. In fact, I moved a similar bill in this place on 3 June 2009, four years and almost four months ago. I gave a lengthy speech on that day and I refer honourable members to it for consideration and to save some time today. In the intervening period, Family First had hoped the state government would look at our bill, and consider their own, by accepting the Police Association of South Australia's overtures to introduce mandatory minimum sentencing for assaulting police officers, as the Barnett government did in Western Australia. More on that in a moment, but a good opening to this debate is to read into Hansard the reflections of one commentator yesterday, Tuesday 24 September 2013. Mr David Penberthy, FIVEaa contributor and editor of the Sunday Mail, talked about pub closing times. He then went on to say: Policing our city streets must be a thankless task, especially on a Friday or a Saturday night when town fills up with young blokes who...often can't hold their drink without becoming violent. Too often it's the coppers who are on the receiving end of this violence, targeted by young blokes trying to prove how macho they are. Now the numbers are actually staggering. Last year there were 177 attacks on police in Adelaide, that's an increase of 46 per cent on the previous year and it's a city problem. At the same time assaults against country police increased by just 11 per cent so it's for this reason that the Police Union is pushing for the introduction of minimum sentencing. This way, the coward who takes a swing at our police would definitely spend some time in jail. The Family First MP Rob Brokenshire is bringing in a PMB [private members bill] this month and I hope that he succeeds. Depressingly, the Attorney-General John Rau—himself a former lawyer—has hit out at the plan and is vowing to block. He referred to an NT case from some 20 years ago where a young Aboriginal boy was jailed for stealing a packet of Tim Tams under mandatory sentencing laws. Well, what that case has got to do with this one is anyone's guess. Overall, us South Aussies are law-abiding people, a peaceful lot, and I would doubt that any reasonable person can understand why you don't automatically wind up in jail the moment you lay a hand on a cop. It's absolutely inexcusable conduct and it should be treated as such by the courts. I'm David Penberthy. This bill largely reflects the Criminal Code Amendment Bill of 2008 passed by the Western Australian parliament. That bill came in response to a shocking attack upon a Western Australian police officer, 32-year-old Mr Matt Butcher. Constable Butcher was attacked as he and other officers sought to break up a brawl outside a Joondalup hotel. Video footage of the brawl and the attacks are on the News Limited websites. Constable Butcher was left paralysed down his left side by the attack. The men involved in the attack were found not guilty, a finding that former prime minister Rudd (in his first term in that position) said on 13 March 2009 had shocked him and he 'had to read it twice'. Mr Rudd went on to say: Every police commissioner I've spoken to in the eastern states has told me how hard things are getting, and in the central business districts in particular. The former prime minister went on: It's time we had a new attitude of respect for the police because they are dealing with the problems of violence, domestic violence and alcohol-induced violence of binge drinking. More than 3,000 police officers and their supporters attended a rally at their Parliament House in support of this reform. Mr Butcher's wife Katrina told the rally: I'm asking you on behalf of all the partners of police officers who have to worry about them going back to work, please please please support the police officers. It is worth noting that the WA Labor Party did not oppose the bill. The Labor Party in Western Australia did not oppose the Liberal government's bill. I note that when we announced that we would be moving this bill, the Attorney-General said mandatory sentencing does not work. Mr Penberthy has already addressed the inept comparison with laws in the Northern Territory that are now repealed and relate to petty offences. By contrast, these laws have worked in Western Australia. After the laws were introduced, assaults on police in Western Australia dropped 28 per cent in the first year—that is 377 fewer assaults. Then in the next six months, the assaults fell a further 13 per cent. So Family First calculates that 250 assaults on South Australian police officers could be prevented by this reform. It is important to bear in mind—in the face of the chief legal officer in this state, the Attorney-General (for whom I have a lot of respect; I think he is a good man), and his Law Society colleagues—that the reduction in assaults is the practical effect of these serious laws. Then there is the reality that not everyone goes to jail under these laws. So they work as a deterrent even though in reality they do not turn out as harsh as the civil libertarians and defence lawyers claim. In December 2011 it was reported in Western Australia that only a third of the people who attack police have gone to jail since the laws were introduced. Let us not get derailed here by the civil libertarians that this law will result in unintended consequences where people are jailed for causing serious harm to a police officer. In a number of cases, perhaps more than half, they will not. There is still scope, for instance, to suspend a sentence of imprisonment for this offending. Let us not get weak kneed here. Setting mandatory minimum penalties in this bill—as it works in Western Australia and as I am proposing here—is not going to jail every person who assaults a police officer. There will need to be serious harm and offending will need to be so serious that there is no justification in suspending the prison sentence, which includes a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment. What is more, mandatory minimum sentencing works and is already generally accepted for drink driving offences. Drink drivers suffer a considerable deprivation of liberty, namely their loss of licence, and in a number of cases that also means a loss of employment for drink driving. It is acknowledged that drink driving causes significant personal and social harm and so mandatory minimum sentencing has been in place for years to curtail that behaviour. If, as the Attorney says, mandatory minimum sentencing does not work, then drink driving laws do not work. The Attorney-General says the state government has already raised penalties for assaulting police. That was in 2006; we are now in 2013. The report by Mr Tim Williams in The Advertiser on Wednesday 18 September 2013 explains that attacks on police have risen 46 per cent in the Eastern Adelaide Local Service Area and statewide have risen 11 per cent. Looking at it another way, the report states assaults have risen from 792 to 883 statewide in the past year. This is a serious issue and it saddens me that we have had to come back to parliament over four years since we first moved for this reform and still there is opposition, despite the West Australian Labor colleagues support for the measure in 2009. This is a law that works, protects our police and promotes respect for the law and its enforcers and hopefully will promote further respect for the community generally. I commend the bill to the council. Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins.