Police Pursuits

Debate resumed from 24 April.

Mr SMALL (Murray) [11.00]: Staysafe 27 deals with traffic stops, police chases and police pursuits of motor vehicles. When Staysafe was established in approximately 1982 about 1,260 lives were lost on the roads each year. Road deaths last year were less than half that figure. Of course, the number is still far too high and we should aim to prevent all road deaths. We have a duty of care to save lives and the recommendations of Staysafe are directed at doing this. Staysafe 27 contains recommendations which require action by the Minister for Transport and the Attorney General. The report is comprehensive: it contains 34 recommendations and is of 238 pages. Police involved in traffic pursuits, even under extreme pressure, must nevertheless drive safely, and the report contains recommendations in this regard. It also sets out a comprehensive training curriculum for senior police.

The committee also suggested amendments to the Traffic Act 1909 in relation to police acting reasonably during pursuits. This is an old Act and many changes have occurred since its passage in
Page 740
relation to police pursuits in modern, fast and powerful vehicles. All the issues outlined in the report are applicable to police chases. Amber flashing lights are used on ambulances and fire-engines as well as in other emergency services areas. The report contains a recommendation which could prove to have safety advantages if the police vehicle headlights, particularly during day time, could flash as well as having the amber lights flash. This would enable other road users and members of the public to know that a police pursuit was in progress.

The visibility and identity of marked police vehicles has improved dramatically in recent times by the use of colourful stripes and marks. No recommendation is made in the report to change the provisions for roadblocks and checkpoints, or the provisions relating to the ramming of motor vehicles being pursued. However, several committee members, including me, travelled to Wellington, New Zealand, and with the Deputy Commissioner of Police and senior police examined New Zealand's policy on police chases. The New Zealand police vehicle is made structurally stronger than ours with the use of external bars. In a pursuit it can get ahead of the offending vehicle and push it aside. While that may have proved satisfactory for skilled drivers with fast and powerful vehicles, it could also create dangerous situations for other road users and the general public. That initiative may seem appealing but some committee members do not consider that it should be a recommendation.

The use of helicopters, which are easily identified, is of tremendous advantage in pursuing motor vehicles. In metropolitan areas helicopters can take off soon after the need is identified and can land on a site within a built-up area. However, helicopters are expensive. They are probably not practical on the open highways where a fixed-wing aircraft is more appropriate. The current use of aircraft for motor vehicle pursuit and surveillance work is satisfactory and the committee recommends no change in that area.

The report contains a recommendation for the trial of tyre deflation devices. The committee members inspected spiked belts placed across a road by police prior to the offending vehicle travelling down that road. As the vehicle went over the spiked belt its tyres deflated very quickly - although not so quickly that the vehicle went out of control - and could travel no more than a couple of hundred metres. It is an efficient way of chasing and stopping a vehicle. However, honourable members appreciate that there could be many vehicles on a busy highway - [Time expired.]

Mr McMANUS (Bulli) [11.05]: I move:

That the motion be amended by leaving out all words after the word "by" with a view to adding instead "the matter being referred to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Police to liaise with the Staysafe Committee concerning the recommendations of Staysafe Report No. 27."

I move this motion after discussions with the Minister for Police. I was a member of the Staysafe committee at the time of the discussion of the recommendations that ultimately appeared in this report. I am pleased to support the thrust of the recommendations. Many of them have been implemented in one form or another and I commend all those involved in the production of the report and its recommendations for their efforts. The Minister considers that this document is of such importance to the public that there must be complete consultation about the recommendations. Because this report relates to issues that are the subject of interpretation by police, such as police chases, police pursuits of motor vehicles and so forth, the matter should be referred for liaison between the Staysafe committee, with which I would be pleased to be once again connected, and the Minister for Police.

Mr JEFFERY (Oxley) [11.08], in reply: I will deal with the amendment after I conclude my contribution on the motion. I thank all honourable members who have contributed to the debate. I refer here to the honourable member for Bega, the honourable member for Londonderry - Chairman of the Staysafe committee - the honourable member for Rockdale, the honourable member for Murray and, very briefly, the honourable member for Bulli. I am concerned about the amendment moved by the honourable member for Bulli. The amendment has been forced upon the House by the honourable member, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Police and a former member of the Staysafe committee. As a former member of the committee he knew of the recommendations, yet he now finds it necessary for the committee to liaise with him about the recommendations. He knows all about them! It is ludicrous that he should come in here with this stunt, and without notice. The Staysafe committee is bipartisan. Its members are always willing to listen to arguments and discuss them. But, for the matter to be hijacked at the eleventh hour is improper. I will pursue my motion because the interest and support shown by all honourable members for the recommendations in this report demonstrates how important this issue is to the community.

I am sure that honourable members on both sides of this House will agree with the finding of the Staysafe committee that an agreement between the New South Wales Office of the Ombudsman and the New South Wales Police Service to investigate police pursuits should have legislative force. In other jurisdictions where this type of statutory reporting requirement exists for police there have been positive outcomes. In cases where death has resulted from a violent or unnatural cause, the Coroner must be notified. It is considered that in the case of police pursuits the Office of the Ombudsman should also be notified. I refer to my comments in this debate last week, on a sad note
Page 741
because it was on the completion of the Staysafe 27 report that the committee recorded the major contribution of the late John Newman, the former member for Cabramatta and a longstanding member of the Staysafe committee. This report serves as a memorial to John Newman's strong desire to address road safety issues in a realistic and achievable way.

I thank honourable members for their participation. I also thank the former chairman of the committee, the honourable member for Wakehurst, who chaired the inquiry, and former ministers of police for their support. I hope the present Minister for Police will extend to the committee the same support and consideration as has occurred in the past. I would like to put on record the major contribution made by a former member of the Police Service, former Assistant Superintendent of Traffic, Merv Lane. He had a special and unique perspective on the evolution of traffic policies in New South Wales and the techniques used, and his assistance and advice were invaluable in the preparation of this report. I will not accept the proposed amendment because the Opposition has been ambushed but I am, as a matter of good faith - and having just spoken to the Minister for Police - prepared to have the matter resolved next week. The honourable member for Bulli was a member of the committee when this report was prepared and I believe he has made an absolute fool of himself. He has attempted to make an idiot of the Chair and of other members of the House.

Mr Martin: He did not have to try hard.

Mr JEFFERY: The Minister should not talk; he is an expert on idiots. I am annoyed at having been ambushed. The honourable member for Bulli is totally out of order and I will not accept the amendment. However, I will accept in good faith the discussions I have had with the Minister for Police and will seek to have the matter adjourned until the next sitting week, on the proviso that the matter is sensibly resolved at that time. On that basis I seek to adjourn the matter. [Time expired.]

Mr ACTING-SPEAKER (Mr Rogan): Order! The honourable member for Oxley has sought to adjourn the debate. However, as the mover of the motion he has already replied to the substantive motion. Therefore, the matter cannot be adjourned. By agreement between the honourable member for Bulli and the honourable member for Oxley, leave may be sought to withdraw the amendment.

Mr McManus: I do not propose to do that but I would suggest suspending discussion of the matter.

Motion, by leave, by Mr Whelan agreed to:

That standing orders be suspended to allow the putting of the question "That the amendment be agreed to" being deferred until the conclusion of general business this day.