Page 900 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 30 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The figures I have been quoting as far as burglary is concerned deal with burglary generally; that is, all burglary. There are slightly different figures for burglary of dwellings, and there is some confusion about whether the question was about burglary of dwellings or burglary in general. The figures for the whole of Australia show a 1.3 per cent reduction across the whole of the country. That is a slightly better figure, from the Minister's point of view, than 2.5 per cent, but equally the figure for the ACT is rather worse. Whereas our rate of increase in general burglary is 13 per cent, for burglary of dwellings it is a massive 20.4 per cent.
I suggested to the Minister that our rate of burglary was growing at double the rate of other places. Obviously, that was wrong. Obviously, the rate of growth in the ACT is way above the Australian average. There is a 1.3 per cent decline nationally and a 20.4 per cent increase in the ACT. He told the Assembly that housebreaking is decreasing around the country. He told us that every government is facing increases in housebreaking rates, and he implied, by making those statements, that our rate of burglary stood up very well by comparison with those other places. That was not accurate. It is, I would respectfully argue, Madam Speaker, a symptom of a continuing problem on the part of this Minister in facing up to the reality of crime in the ACT.
This is not the first occasion that he has - perhaps "misled" is too strong a word - had to come back into this place and correct earlier impressions he has given about the rate of crime in the ACT. Members will recall that he pooh-poohed the idea put forward by the Liberal Party in the middle of last year that our rate of armed robbery might be up. "Oh no", he says, "that is just banging the hollow drum" - or he used some other expression, whatever the vogue expression was six months ago. In fact, armed robbery was up and he had to come back to the house and admit as much. That, Madam Speaker, leaves us in the position of having to say at some point that this Minister must stop attempting to exaggerate and distort the picture with crime in the ACT. He has a duty on him not just to present the bare facts but to present the whole picture. I would respectfully suggest, Madam Speaker, that he has not done that and on this occasion he deserves to be censured for it.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (3.39): Madam Speaker, I think Mr Humphries's closing remarks just about summed it up, where he said, "Perhaps 'misled' is too strong a word". The comment of his, that now that he is in opposition he is honest, comes back to haunt him from time to time. Those remarks at the end of a censure motion really demonstrate what a weak censure motion this is.
Your attack is, as far as I can follow it, on two fronts. Firstly, you claim that I misled the house in relation to motor vehicle theft. You have tried to twist and pull and turn and fiddle with those figures every way you can, to demonstrate that car theft is going up. The fact is that car theft is coming down. I have provided this document to you, Mr Humphries - you have quoted from it - and I have provided it also to some Independents who asked. I will table the document when I have finished my remarks. It has some scribbles on it, though, which I should explain.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .