Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 3 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 623 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

a dwelling 24 per cent, burglary of shops 7.5 per cent, other burglaries almost 18 per cent, fraud and misappropriation almost 60 per cent, motor vehicle theft 29 per cent, bicycle theft 21 per cent and property damage 7 per cent. Some crimes went up, but the majority went down. When the majority of statistics go down, you can free resources to tackle the emerging problems through effective police tactics and intelligence-led policing.

We did not stop there. The Institute of Criminology assessed what we were doing to see whether it was effective or not, and they gave us advice. We then went a step further. (Extension of time granted.) As ministers sitting in a cabinet, we had a profile on crime perpetrators in the ACT. From the results of Operation Anchorage, we got a profile of the average burglar, showing where he committed the crime, what age he was and what difficulties he had? In the main, they were males. As a cabinet, we said, "This is an ideal opportunity to work on prevention. Let us find out the problems these people encounter in their lives if we can-if they agree to help, that would be good-and use that as a basis for preventing crime in the future." The CEOs of Chief Minister's, JACS, health and education got together with the Chief Police Officer and started looking at the common themes, the indicators, the things that had led people to become involved in a life of crime. By using the money in the budget for early intervention and for reducing poverty, we could change the circumstances which were leading people into crime in this city.

We had a very broad view. We knew we had to give the police effective tools, but we were not content to let it go at that. I was with a range of AFP officers on the weekend, from new constables to long-serving superintendents, and they are all convinced that without the provisions that are in the Bail Act now crimes will go back up.

Mr Stefaniak's motion addresses a legitimate concern of the community about sentencing. That is why we in the Liberal Party will be supporting this motion. That is why all members in this place should be supporting this motion. It is not just about policing. It is about us as a community offering hope and solutions, when necessary offering incarceration-that is one result-but also offering ways forward. We are the party of innovation that started on the path. The challenge is for the new government. I want to see their commitment to poverty reduction, early intervention and innovation in tackling crime and recalcitrant prisoners to make sure that people do not go back to prison once they are released. We will be supporting this motion.

MR STEFANIAK (12.15), in reply: I thank members for their comments. I am not surprised at the comments of those opposite. With so many screaming lefties in the place, I did not expect everyone to support this motion. I was a bit concerned when I heard Ms Tucker was considering supporting it. I was relieved when, true to form, she said, "I do not think I can support this" and made the speech she did, however wrong and misguided her speech might have been. It does surprise me that the motion will not get support.

Rather than just a knee-jerk reaction in not supporting this motion, the government should look at the motion more closely and support it. I think there is real cause for concern in the community at some of the comments made by the government.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .