Mr Harriss - He was wrong yesterday, wasn't he?

Mr DEAN - So you were wrong yesterday, Treasurer.

Dr Crean - Oh, right, well, excuse me for misinterpreting your statement that we are an arrogant government for trying to protect $3 million.

Mr Harriss - Yes, you can be that but he can still like you.

Mr DEAN - It is just on occasions that you fit into that mould.

Mr Aird - It is that type of language which is not useful, quite frankly.

Mr DEAN - I support this bill for the reasons I will raise with you. Let me say that in this State offences, crimes of violence, committed on another person is the one area where police statistics clearly demonstrate that our current practices probably are not working as well as they should. The penalties are failing to achieve what we want them to do and that is we want to see a downward trend with this type of offence and I think that these penalties that we are now currently identifying with may well help to do that.

For a long period in this country many people have grown up with the attitude that women in marriage relationships are fair game and it is and was their right to use violence on the other party as they see or saw fit. We have grown up with that attitude and that has occurred over a long, long period of time, Mr President, and we need to ensure that that sort of situation or attitude is stopped. Many thugs out there in the same manner see police as punching bags, and believe that they have a right to resist arrest and obstruct police in the lawful execution of their duty.

Let me say, those attitudes must change and the extended penalties, as I have referred to, in this bill just might help to do that. I urge the courts when imposing penalties for these offences to send a strong message to those offenders in these categories that maximum penalties will be handed out on the appropriate occasions. It is all very well to increase penalties but unless we start imposing and using those penalties - the maximum penalties - then really it becomes a little farcical at the end of the day.
I do not know when we would have last handed out a maximum penalty for an assault, an obstruct or a resist - I think it would be a long, long time ago.

Mr Aird - Do you think the courts should have discretion on these penalties?

Mr DEAN - Certainly, Leader, that is what I referred to - in the appropriate cases. Very clearly it is a discretionary thing for the courts that are presiding at the time. What I am saying is that there are many occasions out there when I see and I think the public would identify the fact that a maximum penalty should be imposed. That would get the message across strongly to these people that we will not accept that type of behaviour.

Women and children in particular, Mr President, must be given every protection humanly possible by the law. Predominantly, they are the weaker sex in a family and a strong message must necessarily be given to those who take advantage of situations to carry out violence on these members, and particularly children - children fit into that category as well. Street assaults, public place assaults are as abhorrent, in my view; in particular, Mr President, those assaults that involve cowardice - and most of them do.

Shortly prior to leaving Tasmania Police I made a media statement branding some street offenders as cowards for the manner in which they perpetrated an attack on an innocent individual. I called for maximum penalties in that case, if those offenders were identified, as a deterrent to anybody else who might behave in that way. I am able to say here that in fact those offenders were identified and the court did impose extremely harsh penalties on them in that instance. This bill will clearly demonstrate to these people, whom we trust to preside over our courts, that we who are entrusted with ensuring the laws are right and reflect public opinion mean business and we want to stop violence.

Police - and I include public officers in this too when I refer to police - must be given absolute support to carry out their lawful activities. As I said, they are not punching bags, they have a tough job, and when they are assaulted or abused, resisted in the carrying out of their duties and their functions, or obstructed in those duties, the perpetrators need to understand that the penalties will be severe, Mr President. We must get that through to them and we must make it strong, and we must publicise it.

The recent incident at Burnie I think clearly demonstrates the precarious nature of policing; the officer was seriously injured, as we know. The officer suffered head injuries and the injuries at the time were life-threatening. I am not quite sure of the current condition of that member.

Mr Fletcher - Still in hospital, I understand.

Mr DEAN - Still there, is he? The injuries were serious, and it just goes to demonstrate the position that police do find themselves in from time to time, and we must give them every support possible. The matter is sub judice now because an offender has been identified and is before the courts. Therefore, Mr President, I will not refer to that case any further.

Having raised these issues, it does concern me that in many of these cases the offender claims drunkenness or claims that they are drugged, and they tend to use that as a defence. Some seem to think that when drunk they have a defence for their cowardly and violent behaviour. That, in my view, aggravates the situation and should be dealt with no differently than in any other case. I am pleased to be able to say that the courts have now taken the attitude that drunkenness is not a defence and that they do deal with those offences in the appropriate way and it is not taken as in any way mitigating any penalties that are handed out. That is very pleasing because people have no right to carry out these types of attacks and behaviour whether they be sober or drunk.

I just briefly touch on the issue of found property. From my background and experience here, I know police are inundated with found property being delivered to police stations, Mr President, and that is great, that is good because it is an offence, as we know, to retain property. You can be charged with stealing by finding, and this indicates that we have a law?abiding public out there; they are handing that property in. But it was always difficult for police on occasions to get rid of that property, particularly after ordinary office hours, weekends, and so on. Finding a justice of the peace is not always that easy, and this of course now will allow inspectors of police and above to dispose of that property. Tasmania Police, as we know, now have inspectors of police pretty well working right through the night; in some areas they have a break during the early hours but most of the time they are working, they are on duty. So that will certainly streamline the passage of returning found property to the owners or the finders when they can lawfully identify that it was lawfully obtained in the first place.

Regarding places of safety for drunks, I think there is an old saying within police ranks that if we get rid of the three Ds - drunks, domestics and dogs - then the job would be much easier and much safer. That is a common saying within police, but what I am saying is that drunk tanks, as they are commonly referred to, is the right way to go. People who become incapable through drink are not criminals, and we were previously able to arrest people who were drunk and incapable, and who were simply drunk. But now of course police cannot do that and that is a great move, and that is a move in the right direction. I commend those people now who have set up and are controlling these places of safety because they have a tremendously hard job at the end of the day for those people who have not -

Mr Aird - It usually is at the end of the day, too, isn't it.

Mr DEAN - Yes, it usually is at the end of the day, you are absolutely right, during the late hours, early morning and so on, when these offences happen. But a person who is affected by alcohol is not easy to handle; it does require a certain expertise, and these places that have identified themselves as being places of safety obviously have that expertise to appropriately handle and control these people. That is the situation that the police have been wanting for a long time and in fact I guess gives the police a reason to celebrate. I would not like to see them celebrate too much about it though because they might find themselves in that position. But the police would be very happy with that situation of taking them to a place of safety.

I applaud the Government for introducing this legislation. I think that provided we give it the appropriate media coverage - I think we need to be strong in that regard. We need to be saying to the offenders out there, 'If you commit acts of violence then at the end of the day you will pay the price'. It cannot be accepted. Our police that are there for the purposes of executing the law and doing the job that the public requires of them need that absolute protection at the end of the day, as do other public officers working within the public system. They need to ensure that they have the support of the courts, the support of the Parliament and the support of the people. This does identify with that and I commend the Government and I will be supporting the bill.