 Okay, thank you. I'll just read a short statement that's consistent with our media release. This of course is in relation to the CMC report released today about the evade police issue in terms of police pursuits. We acknowledge the release of the CMC report. Obviously we'll consider all of the recommendations. For us, they relate primarily of course to training and policy issues. There are a number of recommendations that relate to legislative change. We'll provide to the police minister our views on that in due course after we've had a chance to carefully look at it. And certainly this is a further progression of this issue which the police service has been dealing with now for over 10 years. It is indeed one of, if not the most difficult issue that police face. A very very challenging one and I think that we have made significant advances in the last decade. And I think that's acknowledged in the CMC report itself. I certainly think it's acknowledged in the statistical data since the year 2000. Where pursuits have reduced from in the year 2000, the calendar year from 558. They went up to 661 in 2001, 681 in 2002. And since then they've fallen to 309 last year, so over 50% reduction in approximately 10 years. That's a good trend. These things also relate to balance. What we want and I'm sure that everyone wants is for the community to be as safe as possible. And we all know that the most dangerous place for any of us is on the road. So we need to strike that right balance in terms of giving the police the necessary authority to do the work they have to do. But at the same time where it involves a police pursuit to ensure that the risk to the public is minimized as well. And that's a very delicate balance. So thank you for being here today. I'm happy to take your questions. Yes, I do. This is my view on that. That the penalty for evading police where otherwise there would be a police pursuit needs to be a deterrent. And as well in my view, the penalty needs to be so severe that it's a deterrent factor to the person driving the vehicle concerned. In other words, if they evade police because they've been drinking and they know that they're over the limit, and we are banned in the pursuit, we don't pursue them, then if we catch them and put them before a court, in my view, the penalty needs to be greater than what it would have been for drink driving. So it's an effective deterrent. I don't want to get into descriptive terms like that. I simply express the view that the current average penalty is not in my view adequate in terms of the serious nature of the offence. And it's up to us in the police department to pursue every avenue we can to see whether or not more appropriate penalties can be introduced. In your view, exactly how severe should it be? Well, that would depend on the circumstances. Clearly in the CMC report sets that out, every time we are banned in a pursuit and make a decision not to pursue, which is quite frequently, we are not always going to catch and apprehend and convict the person driving the vehicle. If, for example, it's a vehicle where the police haven't been able to get the registered number and it's late at night, and the person they're attempting to intercept drives immediately through a red light and accelerates rapidly, and the police make an immediate decision to say that we're not going to pursue that vehicle. It's clearly going to be far too dangerous if this person is going to run red lights. Then you may never catch that person. But we're able to, my view is simply that the penalty needs to be such that it is a significant deterrent and needs to be more than it would have been if the person had stopped. Well, I would have thought that potentially would have been something that's open currently to the courts if they so chose. The fine is $20,000, I believe. But certainly my view is a fairly simple and basic one. That is that it needs to be a deterrent, and in my view the deterrent needs to be greater than the penalty if the person had stopped so that it will be a deterrent. Does that make sense? I hope it does for you. Can we just clear up a minute? Does the simple try maximum of $20,000? Is there a jail term that can be applied to those? I'll take some advice on that. I would have thought there is, but I'll come back to you on that. Quite often these matters are tied up with other charges as well. How much of an issue is it that the eva police powers only really assist you where someone is driving their own car, that is, any stolen vehicle? I know that's possible. It's quite possible that if it's a stolen vehicle that the police will subsequently find out who it was. It's far more difficult, of course, but it's possible. It is more likely that if we're able to apprehend the person that the situation is that it was not a stolen vehicle. And generally the categories would be that the person's committed a criminal offence which would usually involve a stolen vehicle and break him into offences or that they're unlicensed or disqualified or that they've been drink driving. Do you see an obvious additional power that you could have that would assist in increasing that rate of apprehension? Certainly the CMC had made a number of recommendations which if adopted would assist us in that regard and certainly in the case of those recommendations we would certainly be supporting them. But ultimately anything that requires legislative change, of course, is a matter for the government. Which one in particular do you think? I'm sorry I haven't had a chance to read the report fully. I've looked quickly through the recommendations before I came down to do this press conference and read the introductory part of the report but I haven't had a chance to digest it fully and it would be probably inappropriate to be commenting in detail and specifically on individual recommendations but we'll do that. But the proper course for that, of course, is for us to put our views forward to the police minister and the police minister would take them to the government. Do you think those recommend the owner of the vehicle whether or not they were required by law to provide police? As I've indicated anything that made the job of police in investigating these matters more effective we would support and certainly it would seem that that recommendation that you're referring to would be an example of that. I think they can be improved. I wouldn't go as far as to say they're inadequate. We are using them and last year I think we prosecuted you just bear with me for a moment. Last statistical year we prosecuted 1,287 people for this offense. So in that circumstance I wouldn't say they're inadequate but what I am saying is that the penalty needs this is a very serious matter. You know, if someone flouts a direction by a police officer to pull over and being intercepted and just keeps driving and then drives away at an increased speed that's a very serious matter in terms of community safety and safety on our roads. And we need, I think to do all we can to deter that sort of behaviour. It seems that a lack of police confidence in the effectiveness of these powers is restraining the extent to which they're actually used when they could be. Do you agree with that, that operational police are finding these powers difficult to implement? That's a big call. When you look at the numbers, the legislation was introduced in 2006. In 2007 there were 1,082 prosecutions. 2008, 1,115. 2009, 1,235. Last year 1,287 and this year so far we're on track for about the same number this year. So it's also possible I guess that the police are still using the evade police provisions. It may well be the case though that they are of the view that despite the fact that they're using them that the penalties are not adequate. I think there is a slight distinction there between those two things. I think we are pretty close to getting it as right as we can but last year there was a coronial inquest and the coroner made a number of recommendations which we have adopted and which our people at Ethical Standards Command and others have put together in terms of a revised, more restrictive pursuit policy. Now we have nearly 11,000 police. You can't train people in a new policy overnight so the implementation date for that revised, more restrictive policy following the coroner's recommendations will be in December this year. I think it's December the 19th, that's the date of commencement and in between we will train people in the more restrictive policy. I believe that the more restrictive policy will see a further drop in pursuits. As I mentioned last year there was 309 compared to 681 in 2002 but I think that figure of 309 in the year 2012, I can't predict this year, I think this year will be slightly less than last year but it was still only half way through the year but I think 2012 will see a further significant reduction in the number of pursuits. I know you vary in figures of the Commissioner from 1287, what are these figures you just required? The two brackets of figures I spent that I gave, the 1287 figure is the number of prosecutions by police for the offence of evade police. And the figure of 309 is last year's figures for the number of police pursuits conducted by police. And that figure of 309 last year of the number of pursuits conducted by police is considerably less than what it was in 2002, which is 681. I know this is an issue that's been discussed before quite a few times, but would a police helicopter with nighttime capability help as it determines? I've always said that it would be nice to have a fleet of helicopters, I've always said that. But what I've also always said is that we have one of the best resourced air wings of any police department in Australia. Currently we're using three Cessna caravans and we have three other aircraft, Britain, Norman Island and the Torres Strait, a jet and a large aircraft that holds 18 people and travels from Cairns to Brisbane three times a week. Sorry, if I could just finish. What I've always said as well is that our priority in my view is for two more at this stage of those Cessna caravan aircraft so that we've got one in Central Queensland and one in South West Queensland. Now, once we've achieved that point, I would be asking the government for the funds for helicopters, but I've never said that helicopters would not be a nice thing to have, they would be, and they certainly would be helpful in the area of tracking stolen vehicles and vehicles that may not stop for the police. But it's an issue in my view of priority and the priority needed for our people in Central and Western Queensland. Is the seriousness of other offenses or which kind of thing there is wanted? One of the factors that's considered when deciding whether or not to continue when it was used? Yeah, absolutely. Yes. And look, can I just say that I think that we will never be in a space. We will be able to say that the police must never be engaged in a police pursuit because there will be some situations and I acknowledge that they're not frequent, but I know this from personal experience and we've seen it in recent experience. It might involve a child abduction and the media are incredibly supportive and helpful in that space and regard. And we're recently, and I think that the expectation of the public and certainly my view would be if you have a child that had been abducted and the safety of that child was at genuine risk, then the police should conduct a pursuit to ensure the safety of that child. Every situation has got to be judged on its own merits, of course. From personal experience, I know of a matter that was going to shoot someone and had a loaded firearm beside them on the seat of the car and simply had to be stopped. And with more serious criminal offences, and I believe there's been an example of that recently as well, potentially, where people may, you know, subject to being, having the charges substantiated in a court, be accused of committing serious armed robberies involving potentially firearms, and these are repeat offenders, then I think we have an obligation as well, you know, to pursue people like that because of the risk they pose to our community. But so I think there'll always be circumstances. But what I believe as well we have developed over time is a recognition that in many cases some criminal matters are simply not worth pursuing either. And the sorts of examples there, and whilst they're serious matters, some stolen vehicles, quite frankly, are not worth a lot of money. And in some cases, even a breaking and entering offence might involve juvenile offenders with property of itself not worth a lot of money and certainly not worth, you know, the loss of someone's life with someone running a red light and killing some innocent person going through the green light. So very difficult decisions and police officers have to make those snap judgments from the spirit of the moment. I think in what is a very difficult set of circumstances, we're heading in the right direction in terms, I hope, of keeping the balance right so that we maintain community safety on the one hand but that we don't create unnecessary risk on the other. Is it realistic then to add police considering the potential of the evade police powers so that decision that they make whether to start a pursuit, which is what the CMC is saying, that before they start a pursuit they should think, oh, will the evade police powers allow them to do this as an alternative? Or is that, do you reach task centeration if you had too much of that? Look, that's something we want to look closely at. It may well be that that is absolutely quite achievable in terms of training. It may well be that that's quite achievable but you're quite right, we can't as well overload our people to the point where we just make their job impossible. But that's one that we'll look closely at but that certainly may well be quite achievable. Just on a side note, the CMC also found that the prostitution laws in the state successfully regulated the street. Do you agree with that? It's not my role or our role in the police department is to enforce the laws in terms of offences. I haven't had a chance to let a land look at the fullness and completeness of the evade police issue. I haven't had a chance to look at all at the prostitution report. If it's the ongoing issue of the regulation of outcalls or out-servicing then that's been one that's been around for a long time that ultimately will be a decision for the government. I'm sorry, I can't take it any further than that. Look, again, that's a matter for others to judge whether or not... I think the question is imprisonment and effective deterrent. Is that the question? Thanks for the question. Our role is to enforce the legislation in terms of prostitution. I genuinely believe that our people are doing a really good job of that. I think we've come a long, long way in terms of the way we do that. I think we use a lot of common sense in the way we go about that and the sorts of people we target in that space. But the issue of whether or not the penalties that are imposed when a person has been convicted of offence are deterrent to that person remaining in the prostitution industry which I think may be the second part of the question. That's not a matter that I can comment on. I'm sorry, simply because I don't have that... No, that's a matter I'll leave to the judiciary. It's very rare that I make a comment about penalties. I have today because I think this is such a critical issue in terms of the evade police issue and I truly believe that it's really important that on conviction that the penalty for that offence be a significant deterrent. But I'm not qualified nor do I think it's appropriate for me to get into this base of the deterrent aspects of penalties for prostitution. Others would be far better qualified than me to comment on that. I'm sorry, I can't help you. The police have added that it was a $20,000 bond. Is that loss of licence? My understanding is, and I'll come back to you on this, that there would be an option for a court to impose a disqualification period, a quite significant one. But on both of those issues, the extent of a disqualification period whether a person could be sent to prison, we'll come back to you. We'll put out a short release on that soon. Thanks very much. Thank you for your time today.