Page 907 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 30 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
are halfway through a financial year, or a little bit more than that, give the financial year figures relevant to a year ago, but do not omit the yearly figures which differ from the overall impression that Mr Connolly was getting across. The reason why he picked car theft when that was not the question asked was obviously in order to present a particular picture about crime. If he presented various other figures we would find that other crimes are increasing in the ACT. So is it relevant to pick out one and not give a fair indication of the actual figures? As I said, it is difficult to tell with the entire debate. I look forward to hearing Mr Humphries's summation of what Mr Connolly has said and the various points that have been brought up.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (4.01): Madam Speaker, a motion of censure of a Minister is a very serious matter indeed. We on this side of the house will always treat a censure motion as perhaps the most serious statement that the Assembly can make about the performance of any one of us, whether Minister or member. I was amazed therefore to hear Mr Humphries, at the commencement of his remarks on his censure motion, say that he did not consider that Mr Connolly had deliberately misled the Assembly, and to say at the end of his remarks that perhaps "misled" was too strong a word to use in relation to Mr Connolly's actions. It does indicate to me, Madam Speaker, that Mr Humphries is certainly not convinced that Mr Connolly warrants censure on this matter. I would remind members that the motion Mr Humphries has moved is, "That this house censure the Minister for police for misleading it as to the incidence of crime". So it is a very broad-ranging motion that Mr Humphries has put forward.
Madam Speaker, I believe that Mr Connolly has explained to the Assembly the circumstances surrounding the figures he provided on motor vehicle theft in response to a question last Wednesday in this Assembly by Mr Humphries. Mr Connolly has clearly covered that ground. Quite clearly, he did not mislead the Assembly. The accuracy of the figures was confirmed by the Chief Police Officer yesterday, and that should have been the end of the matter, in my opinion. Mr Humphries has shifted his ground a little bit to take in housebreaking, and in his motion has shifted his ground to embrace the incidence of crime - all crime, presumably. So, clearly, he does not feel very strongly that he has a good case against Mr Connolly.
Madam Speaker, on the broader question of crime in the ACT, there is no doubt that there has been a general increase over the past few years - by "the past few years" I mean five years or so - and that is to be expected. It is my understanding that all States and Territories, particularly the major cities, have experienced similar increases. I am aware also, or Mr Connolly has advised me, that one or two areas are making some inroads to reduce that increase in crime, and, of course, that has to be the object of the ACT Minister for police as well.
If anybody has any doubt about the figures, one has only to look at the comparative figures that are compiled on a regular basis by the Australian Institute of Criminology to see how different States and Territories are faring. I would advise Mr Stevenson to take that course of action. Madam Speaker, a comparison of crime statistics is not the be all and end all of the debate on community policing and community safety. The statistics, I believe, are very cold comfort indeed for the victims of crime. The statistics do not address in any way how we as a community feel about crime or how we propose to go about addressing crime. This Government is taking a longer-term strategic approach to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .