Page 2377 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 16 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS SZUTY (3.57): Madam Speaker, I am not convinced that we are looking at an explosion of crime in the ACT, regardless of the view espoused by the Opposition spokesman on legal and police matters, Mr Humphries. We need to look carefully at the sorts of crimes being committed, the current methods of dealing with crime, the improved methods of detection and intelligence, and the impact of other factors such as unemployment and the disempowerment of sections of the community in relation to crime statistics.
It was outlined in the ACT budget yesterday that in the next 12 months Canberra will spend almost $10m on the administration of justice and just over $53m on policing. The Government has identified that the ACT can no longer afford to have an open cheque book for any area of government expenditure - a sentiment I agree with. This attitude gives us as a community the chance to try new, low cost alternatives for dealing with many crimes which are currently taking up court and police time. One of the measures that I feel exemplify this type of approach is the recent change to the Drugs of Dependence Act which will remove one group of people from the judicial system. The number will not be great. Last year only 35 people were charged with possession of cannabis, 70 with cultivating cannabis plants and four with using cannabis.
The necessities imposed on our law enforcement sector by budgetary restrictions already dictate that the focus should be on major crimes, and that focus should be supported by both legislation and funding. I am not saying that some offenders should be allowed to go free. The cost of their crimes and the impact on their victims must be addressed by a fair and equitable justice system. There is a need to intervene in areas where we can identify problems arising and can redirect potential offenders. But first we have to identify the major areas of crime that are prosecuted in the ACT. In the Magistrates Court, 11,724 of the total of 15,715 offenders had cases brought against them for traffic related matters. Three thousand defendants faced charges under the Crimes Act, mostly for assaults, damage to property, burglary and theft. There were 890 other defendants charged with three categories of offences against the ACT Government and with offences under poisons and narcotics and miscellaneous legislation.
An article by Crispin Hull in the Canberra Times last month pointed out the fact that most of the people who appear before a magistrate plead guilty, with only 0.9 per cent of defendants being acquitted. This is largely accounted for, in Mr Hull's estimation, by most of the charges relating to minor drug matters, or traffic offences, where the offender admits the offence and pays the consequential penalty. Mr Hull also pointed out that Canberra magistrates tend to give offenders who have drug or alcohol problems time to receive assistance for their substance abuse problems before imposing more onerous sentencing options on them. This approach, it appears to me, is a valid method of addressing problems that present before the courts. The ACT is expected to take another step in this direction in the near future when the Assembly debates further amendments to the Drugs of Dependence Act which will allow for an expansion of the methadone program. When we adopt these measures, we are informing our community that there are people experiencing difficulties in our society and that we want to address those problems before the people involved turn to crime to support their drug habits.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .