Page 902 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 30 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY: Perhaps it is not very often that I am really wrong, but when I am wrong I am prepared to come in here and say that. In relation to the armed robbery statistics, you will recall that I did come in here and say that I was wrong, and I explained why I was wrong - because the assistant commissioner produced a document, which again I tabled in this place, which showed that there had been some confusion in relation to the way the police had advised me in relation to the police reporting periods. The fact that I had indicated that armed robberies were running slightly below the previous financial year when in fact they had been running slightly above the previous financial year was as a result of police information. I came into this place and made that abundantly clear. As soon as I became aware of that figure I was prepared to come in here and say that. When I get it wrong I am prepared to say that I was wrong.
I would have thought that the Liberal Party could have said, "Well, look, we got it wrong. We were misinformed. We got information. We thought it was accurate, but we accept that it was wrong". Instead of that, we saw this sort of weaseling attempt to turn white into black, to turn night into day, to show that figures which show a reduction in fact show an increase. Madam Speaker, they do not. Nobody believes that they do - apart perhaps from Mr Humphries. So the arm of attack in relation to motor vehicle theft must be dismissed.
Then we come to burglaries. Mr Humphries, on this, towards the end of his statement, does not say that I misled the house.
Mr Humphries: Yes, I do.
MR CONNOLLY: No, he said that "misled" is too strong a word. He says, "You could have got an impression from what Mr Connolly was saying that he was trying to gild the lily". Madam Speaker, we should go back to the context of the question. Mr Humphries was asking me questions about housebreaking. The reason I referred to figures for motor vehicle theft was to make the point that housebreaking has been seen in recent years as an endemic problem around Australia. My statement was that all governments had faced or are facing increases, and that is correct.
Mr Humphries: You did not say "had"; you said "are".
MR CONNOLLY: Have or are; have and are. The figures from the Institute of Criminology that Mr Humphries tabled, I think - certainly he produced them to me yesterday - show that, if we take a three-year period, and I will take a three-year period because the Canberra Times was touting a 20 per cent increase over three years and we were debating how that compared, New South Wales had a 2.6 per cent decrease, which is a very good result, Victoria over the three-year period had a one per cent increase, Queensland over the three-year period had a 33 per cent increase, Western Australia over the three-year period had a 13 per cent increase, South Australia had a 4.5 per cent decrease, and this is the best result, Tasmania over the period had a 16 per cent increase, and the ACT over the equivalent period had an 8.9 per cent increase. So we have varying results around Australia, but it is significant, as Mr Humphries notes, that there has been a reduction in at least two States. I did not acknowledge that in the answer to that question; perhaps I should have.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .