Dr WOODRUFF question to PREMIER, Mr ROCKLIFF
[10.47 a.m.]
I take it, from your previous answer to me, that you did realise and read the Police Commissioner’s letter prior to Cabinet’s decision. If that’s not right, please correct me. In her letter, she says:
… in the aftermath of the tragic murder of Constable Smith, we now seek your support as we confront the growing risk posed by firearms in our community.
She reiterates the National Firearms Agreement’s principle, that firearms possession and use is a privilege and that community safety must be considered first.
Given these strong statements and the clear evidence for firearms caps from our Police Commissioner, how do you justify Cabinet’s decision to prioritise political considerations over safety for our police and the wider community?
ANSWER
Honourable Speaker, I thank the honourable member the question. Again, I iterate my absolute support for our Police Commissioner Adams, and repeat, once again, it was one of my proudest appointments, appointing Commissioner Adams to the role of which Commissioner Adams is doing an outstanding job.
I appreciate the feedback from the commissioner on what is a very complex area and one that is in support of her officers and their safety – and the correspondence to the honourable member and, indeed, the correspondence to me. Commissioner Adams also wrote to me on 5 February, which I’m happy to table that letter. That was following a face to face meeting, I believe if my memory serves me correctly, on 28 January.
First, on the views of the commissioner, and we make considerations across a range of areas. I am making the assumption that all the other areas that we’ve announced have the parliament’s support.
Mr ABETZ – Yes, seems so.
Mr ROCKLIFF – Okay. The sticking point would appear to be caps and, rather than caps, we believe our focus is better on cracking down on criminals. That is our focus. Not only that, being part of the accelerated National Firearms Registry, when it comes to Australian residents also in the possession of, or owning firearms, as well, and a range of other measures, including tougher penalties for those who steal guns and those in possession of a stolen firearm, which I believe the honourable member, Mr Ferguson as Police minister, put through the lower House.
Mr FERGUSON – No, minister Hidding.
Mr ROCKLIFF – Minister Hidding put through the lower House, and then unfortunately it was knocked out upstairs in another place, but it’s part of our reform.
Supplementary Question
Dr WOODRUFF – The Premier didn’t answer the question, which was: on the basis of the evidence provided in the Police Commissioner’s letter about threats to police, threats to community safety, firearms ownership not being a privilege but needing to be balanced with the safety of the community and the national reform agenda, how can the Premier justify not supporting her view? Will you table that letter today that you pointed to, and how do you justify it?
Mr ROCKLIFF – As I say, I met the commissioner face to face on 28 January, although I stand to be corrected on the exact date. I received a letter from the commissioner on 5 February, and I will table that letter now, along with the honourable minister’s letter as well from the commissioner in openness and transparency, because I respect the views of our Police Commissioner.
Papers tabled.
Dr WOODRUFF – You dismissed them.
The SPEAKER – Order, Dr Woodruff.
Mr ROCKLIFF – I respect the views of a number of Tasmanians, and we made a commitment that we would minimise any effects on law-abiding firearm owners. In actual fact, we are cracking down on the firearms that were used in Bondi and changing them to a category C, and we have a 1.5 times buyback to encourage –
Dr WOODRUFF – Standing order 45, relevance, honourable Speaker. The question was specifically about the Premier’s dismissal of the commissioner’s views and he’s provided no answer to that.
The SPEAKER – Your comments are noted on Hansard.
