 good afternoon everybody are we good to go what I would like to do is just make a general opening statement after that happy to take questions on the issue okay all right well this morning the CM the QPS received a copy of the CMC's taser evaluation report we welcome the report and we welcome the CMC's interest in this matter the report is an example of the ongoing collaboration between both of the agencies into taser usage policy training and deployment as acknowledged in the report itself the CMC could not have completed the report as comprehensively without the support and assistance of a range of QPS officers you would probably remember that in 2009 there was also a joint response by both of the agencies to emerging issues and that as a result of that collaboration we had a range of training and policy initiatives that were implemented throughout 2010 so in consultation with the CMC the QPS approved the implementation of a revised policy and training package that resumed mid 2010 and has been ongoing since then as a result of that the ratio of officers who have been trained has continued to grow but there was no accompanying increase in the number of weapons that were available for deployment so as a result the QPS has recently placed an order to purchase for the tasers this is to ensure that all taser trained officers have the opportunity to carry the weapon whilst operationally deployed we came to the view that the unavailability of the weapon to staff who were trained placed an unacceptable risk both to the community and to the safety of those officers both the chairman of the CMC and the state coroner were advised of our intention to purchase for the tasers so as a result we've ordered an additional 1,030 tasers 830 of those will be operationally deployed across the state based on a needs assessment and the other 200 will be used as part of our ongoing and enhanced training regime we consider taser to be a highly effective use of force option which has so far prevented 281 people from either committing suicide or serious self-harm and has significantly reduced the incidence of serious assault on police given that on about 76% of occasions the mere production of the weapon is sufficient to peacefully resolve a situation shows how effective they are in de-escalating potentially violent situations happy to take questions look that'll be there'll be well over a thousand deployed across Queensland the the most important statistic for us is that every time a trained operational crew is deployed frontline policing that one of those officers has access to and carries a taser look I haven't got the exact number but what we are confident is when we get these additional tasers into use that throughout Queensland our officers whenever they leave the station will have a weapon available if they've been appropriately trained and we think by doing that that is the best way that we can enhance the safety of the public and the safety of our officers Does it make us to the concerns that the tasers are being used against mentally ill and physically ill people which your response to that is a bit of that than guns? Well I think as I alluded earlier the fact that we have been able to stop I think it's 281 people from either committing suicide or very serious self-harm is something that we should recognize is a success factor as far as I'm concerned sadly it's often the case that when we have to deploy these weapons it is often in response to someone who's mentally ill seriously intoxicated or otherwise not in a reasonable state where we can talk rationally with them so it doesn't surprise me that often we have to use the weapon against that class of people and that's unfortunate but what I think would be more unfortunate is if we continue to go to those situations and not have the weapon to use because having the weapon in our view gives us the greatest chance of potentially ending the situation peacefully or if we can't end it without using the weapon we can certainly end it without having to use lethal force and I think everyone wants that. How do you explain that indigenous people are 7 times more likely to be involved in an incident with the taser than non-indigenous people have set out in the report? Well the stats show that indigenous people represent about 17% of the total number of deployments that we have and I would acknowledge that that's above their population base in the community but can I say that when we use this weapon we do a risk assessment based on the situation. Our assessments based on risk not on race. To us it's immaterial, the ethnicity of the person who's involved in an incident. What we're concerned about is does it meet the threshold requirement that we place on our officers that is there's a risk of serious injury to either the subject person, other members of the community or the police. Well if you look at some of the risk factors that we would that officers on the front line would consider their things like is the person, do they have a history of violence, are they armed, are they under the influence of liquor or a drug. Those sort of risk factors are what is in the mind of our operational officers before they make the decision to draw the taser. As I say the fact that the person who is on the other side of that risk factor happens to be an Indigenous person is to all intents and purposes are relevant for us. We're just dealing with the situation. It's about risk and not about race. It's exactly those concerns, those needs, the need for better education that our risk groups people have, I'll say heart disease or something like that but the officers need to know more about those sort of circumstances and how to deal with them effectively. Is that one reason why this could be happening? Well that's one of the recommendations that's in the report and whilst we've only received the report this morning we haven't had a chance to digest the implications of every single recommendation. Greater education for officers about the risk factors of some of those groups is certainly one of the recommendations and we'll very carefully consider all of those recommendations and I'm confident that we'll implement most if not all. Are you confident that every time a taser has been deployed that it's been used appropriately? What I can say is that every time an officer draws the weapon whether they actually shoot it or not is subject to a very strict reporting, accountability and oversight regime at the regional level. Those reports are then are over viewed at the region, sent to the ethical standards command and also over viewed by the CMC. There have been some instances where the review of those incidents have led to the officers getting managerial guidance or retraining but in no occasion has it led to any serious disciplinary issues. So yes I'm confident that they are being used appropriately and if they were not being used appropriately I'm confident that all of the accountability mechanisms are in place to pick that up. How many times has that happened where there's had to be a managerial retraining? Look it's a handful. I couldn't give you the exact number but it is literally a handful. How many cases are there on police tasering themselves or each other? Look we have an accidental discharge of the weapon in the station as part of the checking process before they go on duty. Probably one every couple of weeks I would guess around the state. It's just an ongoing training and familiarization issue for us. No one's been seriously hurt but it is something obviously we want to eradicate and I think as the officers become more familiar with the weapon and the procedure that we're less than over time. What happens is if the officer has to use the weapon and they have to use more than one cycle that's recorded on the taser usage form as a multiple deployment the officer in charge of the station downloads the electronic chip in the weapon and that is then sent off for review and analysis by the significant event review panel. So and then irrespective of that every six months each of the weapons are independently downloaded by the OICs of the stations to ensure that there have been no deployments that have not been reported. So I think we have a fairly robust accountability process. One of the concerns from the CMC that you know multiple uses or prolonged uses? Well obviously it's not something that anyone wants to see. We don't want to see our officers have to use the weapon and certainly we don't want to have to see them use it with multiple cycles. Sometimes that's unavoidable because of the operational circumstances but ideally we would like the mere presentation of the weapon to be sufficient where we have to use it one cycle only wherever possible and that is the overwhelming majority. If there is a multiple deployment that's very carefully considered in all of the circumstances when it's reviewed by the significant event review panel. When you heard to respond to the public about review and implementation? Look I can't give you a firm timeframe given that we only got the report mid-morning this morning but I can give you the undertaking that as soon as possible we will review and be able to put a position back to the CMC and the public about our response to the report. Any other question? Some examples cited in the report in relation to multiple uses. I think the maximum was 13 to one person. Can you detail any more circumstances around that? No I'm not familiar with that specific case but as I indicated earlier every single deployment singular or multiple is examined by the significant event review panel that then comes to the ESC and reviewed by the CMC so that circumstance would have been examined as a use of force option as is every other time the weapon is withdrawn from the holster. Is it the same for the person shot in the head? Beg your pardon? One person was shot in the head? Shot in the head? Well I'm sure without knowing the circumstances of the case that was probably an unintended consequence because that's not the training they get so I'd say if a person was shot in the head it would have been an accidental discharge in that regard rather than aiming for the body massage with what they're taught.