Speaker 1: Northern Territory government is considering a trial to let territorians
Speaker 1: carry pepper spray.
Speaker 2: Is that right? Yeah, that's right. I don't know whether
Speaker 2: you're aware or not, but Western Australia has already wronged
Speaker 2: out this plan where they are under strict guidelines of course,
Speaker 2: owing people in Western Australia to be able to gain
Speaker 2: access to sea spray or pepper spray or capsican spray,
Speaker 2: whatever you would like to call it. But now and
Speaker 2: Tea is actually looking at that as well. So it's
Speaker 2: going to be a really interesting time because there's a
Speaker 2: lot of people on the fence about this. I actually
Speaker 2: bored anything or an item or a product that is
Speaker 2: nonthol that's going to allow people to protect themselves. But
Speaker 2: I think again we're actually addressing really gray area and
Speaker 2: legal field here in regards to the roll out and
Speaker 2: the usage of capsican spray.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, to me, it sounds like a ridiculous idea.
Speaker 2: What's ironic to me? And this is sort of where
Speaker 2: I've got my back just a lot, to be honest
Speaker 2: with you feel because here they are they're rolling it
Speaker 2: out to pavilions to carry under strict guidelines. So we've
Speaker 2: got lawful self defense. We've got reason grounds there'll be
Speaker 2: purchase restrictions in WA and Northern Territory, which meant that
Speaker 2: potentially licensed gun vendors will actually you won't be able
Speaker 2: to buy it over the counter at Bunnings. But here
Speaker 2: we've got a situation where security personnel who potentially are
Speaker 2: licensed and have the training to be able to carry
Speaker 2: the OC spry cannot carry it or use it in
Speaker 2: the course of their duties, but they are selling it
Speaker 2: and roll out to civilians.
Speaker 1: What's the territory on that with security guards? Is that nationwide?
Speaker 2: Yes, that's right, it's nationwide. At the moment they OC
Speaker 2: spray is considered a prohibitive weapon if used in the
Speaker 2: course of duty. So in actual fact, as a security
Speaker 2: officer across Australia, we can potentially purchase it as a civilian,
Speaker 2: but we can't use it in the course of our duties.
Speaker 2: So if we feel like that we're in imminent danger
Speaker 2: as a civilian, we can utilize.
Speaker 1: This now, but not as a security guard.
Speaker 2: Not as a security And again, you think after this
Speaker 2: bond Eie tragedy that happened in Sydney, you would think
Speaker 2: that we would be the first people that could do
Speaker 2: the trials utilize the OC spray, But it's not they're
Speaker 2: selling it and giving it to civilians. But also what
Speaker 2: they're doing is saying that you need to use it
Speaker 2: for appropriate use. Now, my thoughts or perception of imminent
Speaker 2: anger and life threatening may be a little bit different
Speaker 2: to yours feel So how are they actually going to
Speaker 2: circumnavigate that A will? Did you use it and misappropriately
Speaker 2: use that? Like? How are they going to determine this?
Speaker 1: And a couple of things. You would have more right
Speaker 1: to use it than I would because you're a security guide.
Speaker 1: And also the Bondi junction thing wasn't just a one
Speaker 1: off anymore. You've got all of those situations going on
Speaker 1: with the machetes and everything like that at the shopping centers.
Speaker 2: Well, that's exactly right. Even though the stats aren't out
Speaker 2: for twenty twenty five at the moment, in regards to
Speaker 2: crime rate, they're saying that there's been a two point
Speaker 2: one percent increase in violent crime, which doesn't sound a lot,
Speaker 2: but across Australia that's about four hundred and fifty thousand
Speaker 2: violent incidents. When we're talking assaults, grievous body harm that
Speaker 2: has occurred across Australia on top of the already stats
Speaker 2: that we have, and the fact that security personnel first
Speaker 2: responders the majority of the time, you know, and people
Speaker 2: yell out security or the sirens go off wherever we are,
Speaker 2: we are the first responders. We respond, We take that
Speaker 2: on board and then we contact the emergency services and
Speaker 2: saying this would have changed anything, but potentially if we
Speaker 2: had to have access to OC spray or the pepper
Speaker 2: spray and the Bondo tragedy, you know, And I'm not
Speaker 2: saying this is the case, I'm saying what would the
Speaker 2: outcome have been?
Speaker 1: If you're in a position to defend yourself and you've
Speaker 1: got the training, then I absolutely believe you should have it.
Speaker 1: What are the prerequisites though, what are the requirements that
Speaker 1: you have to have legally in Western Australia and under
Speaker 1: the trial in the Northern Territory as a civilian to
Speaker 1: be able to get hold of pepper spray.
Speaker 2: Well, all you have to do is go into a
Speaker 2: license dealer. You've got to have a state address, being
Speaker 2: Western Australia or Northern Territory. So I can't travel from
Speaker 2: New South Wales and go into the wa interest. But
Speaker 2: you've got to have lawful self defense. So you've got
Speaker 2: to actually come a like you actually need that in
Speaker 2: regards to lawful self defense. Only what's the criteria? There
Speaker 2: is none at this time. Reasonable grounds is another. So
Speaker 2: it's it's saying it there's nothing that actually really qualifies
Speaker 2: what the reasonable ground is because that's a legal isn't it.
Speaker 2: That's exactly right, And the government is sort of showing
Speaker 2: due diligence and they're saying, well, wiling this out to
Speaker 2: protect people. And again I applaud anything that is non
Speaker 2: lethal of course to protect people. But use limitations. Tell
Speaker 2: me what that is, phil like, what is the usage
Speaker 2: limitations including unlawful possession of a weapon.
Speaker 1: And how can you verify whether or not the person
Speaker 1: that used it was actually under threat?
Speaker 2: That's what I'm saying. I'm saying perception of imminent danger
Speaker 2: is totally different to what I see to what you
Speaker 2: would see.
Speaker 1: It's based on the perception of what's in front of you.
Speaker 1: If you were trained security guard, you know, if you're
Speaker 1: a person who's walking down the street, you assume that
Speaker 1: you've got imminent danger.
Speaker 2: Well, that's exactly right. But another thing is is that
Speaker 2: the civilian that actually gains access to this OC spray
Speaker 2: doesn't need to be certified or trained. So here we go.
Speaker 2: There's also they're going to have penalties for misusage. Now
Speaker 2: when that gets into the court system, how are they
Speaker 2: going to determine that because there's four thousand dollars?
Speaker 1: Well that was my point exactly, how are you going
Speaker 1: to verify it? How can you prove in court what
Speaker 1: the situation was unless you've got foot each of it.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, exactly right. And that's when we come back
Speaker 2: to security personnel. Like we've got reactive protective equipment at
Speaker 2: the moment in regards to stab proofs. We've got the
Speaker 2: body cams, but we haven't got the preventative measures. I mean,
Speaker 2: like I said, we can, we can purchase it as
Speaker 2: a civilian, but we can't use it in the course.
Speaker 1: Of a ridiculous law. That's a crazy law. Let's open
Speaker 1: up the phones on this treena.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'd be interested to see what people think about this,
Speaker 2: particularly paramedics, because they're actually coming forward and saying that
Speaker 2: spraying this stuff can affect your breathing as well. So
Speaker 2: a lot of people on the fence here