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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 11 Hansard (22 October) . . Page.. 3941 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I was at the annual general meeting of the AIDS Action Council the other night. They give awards each year. One of the awards went to the policing unit for gay and lesbian people. That is a really good example of social understanding being brought into police work. It has been very successful and the police have been commended by the community for that work. I certainly support that commendation.

So I do have some sympathy with Mr Pratt's interest in community policing, but unfortunately the rest of his motion is very difficult to support. I will certainly put on the record that I have sympathy with the idea about community policing or the reservations that are put. Mr Pratt's motion claims that the performance of ACT Policing is clearly beginning to decline. I have a problem supporting that point as I haven't seen or heard clear evidence to support that.

Some very good work in pilot-type programs has been developed by the police working in partnership with community organisations in the past. I have mentioned a couple already. There was a neighbourhood dispute resolution project in Tuggeranong which I think dwindled. This aimed to divert neighbourhood disputes to mediation which builds community rather than immediately reacting with recommending protection orders. Project Saul, which Mr Pratt also thinks is a good project, is another example.

But getting back to crime: the crime prevention budget for the police last year was not spent. The police, I understand, did not have the time to work on such projects with other community groups and the money was returned. This is a great shame as there were community groups, for example the Youth Coalition, who were ready to work on what could have been very useful initiatives.

Investigations consistently tell us that family support, not just crisis intervention, and reducing inequity in society are the most effective means of reducing crime. While an effective and community-minded police force is important, it will not of itself reduce crime; and it is very important to look at these broader social issues.

As Ms Dundas mentioned, of course drug law reform is very necessary. A huge percentage of people going through our courts, particularly young people, are there for drug-related crime. Drug law reform is an attempt to deal with this. It has got to come up as a major issue in any debate about crime in Canberra. The fact that we still do tend to criminalise people who have these health problems not only is counterproductive for the people who have the health problems, it is counterproductive for the rest of the society who bear the brunt of the crime as a result of those people who are sick and have drug addiction.

I would really like to see the Liberal Party take a much stronger position on that, although I know Brendan Smyth does. He is a member of the Parliamentarians for Drug Law Reform. I really commend him for that broad vision but it doesn't seem to come out so much in these sorts of motions. Also, of course, very important are the diversionary programs and restorative justice and rehabilitation in terms of reducing crime.

I am also not able to give my support to the claim that there has been an increase in complaints. I understand, rather, that the level of complaints recorded in annual reports has remained reasonably steady over the years. That is not to diminish the importance of

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