Page 2753 - Week 09 - Thursday, 27 September 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
appropriate level of detailed analysis around the sociological factors, the psychological factors and the behavioural trends to get the best possible fix on this issue.
As Mr Pratt rightly acknowledged, this is a trend not just in the ACT but across the country. It is a disturbing trend, but the government does not support the view that increasing penalties further will make any substantial difference. If the solution to every crime and every incidence of an offence against the community could be solved by increasing the penalty, we would be a crime-free society by now, but it is simply not the case. It is simplistic in the extreme to suggest that simply increasing the penalty will fix the problem. Increasing the penalty just makes it look like you are trying to fix the problem but it does not actually achieve anything on the ground in most instances.
The penalties need to be sufficient and robust, and we believe they are. Ten years imprisonment and a fine of up to $100,000 are significant penalties, and it cannot be suggested otherwise—especially for a young person. So the penalties are sufficient, and I believe the policing response has been commendable. There is a dedicated investigation group, dedicated patrols, intelligence gathering and school visits. These are all measures that we would expect from our police, and we welcome their response and their continuing efforts.
We need to have a detailed, independent, expert analysis of this trend. This will help to inform policy making. That is why the government proposes to amend the motion in order to commission an independent study. I commend that approach to members. I think it focuses on the detailed expert analysis that we need in order to understand the crime trends and data in this area. Hopefully, that will help to inform the community, the government and this Assembly as to how we continue to address this issue going forward. I commend the amendment to the Assembly.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (11.13): I seek leave to move my two amendments together, amending Mr Corbell’s amendment.
Leave granted.
MR SMYTH: I move:
(1) omit “omit all words after ‘ACT’ in paragraph (1)”; and
(2) omit “(2)”, substitute “(5)”.
Mr Speaker, I think Mr Corbell has spoken a lot of wisdom today in that this is not a simple question which we can resolve. If it was a simple question, if there was a simple answer, it would have been put in place in Australia and, indeed, around the world. But it is an interesting change of approach from the government, and I commend Mr Corbell and I commend the AFP for actually sitting down and thinking about and coming up with a solution to this problem. On 23 August this year, when Mr Pratt asked Mr Hargreaves what he was going to do, the answer was:
Apart from putting shatterproof glass on all the windows, bar the back window, I really do not know how to address this issue.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .