Page 915 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 30 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
There was also a suggestion from Ms Follett that we had shifted ground from car theft to burglary in the course of the motion. I made it perfectly plain from the outset of the debate that I was talking about both car theft and burglary. I do not think Ms Follett was in the chamber, or she was not listening when I said that.
Ms Follett: Yes, I was.
MR HUMPHRIES: Well, I have my notes here and you can have a look at them. You will see when the Hansard comes out that I clearly said at the very outset that I was talking about two things, not one; but that is a small point.
I am also disappointed, I must say, with the suggestion from Ms Szuty that I have been selective in the use of my figures on burglary. My remarks, as again the Hansard record will show, indicated quite fully that we believed that the figures across the country on burglary were down; that there were places where there had been a quite steep decline, whereas the ACT had led the nation in terms of increase; and I also produced the figures on that question to Ms Szuty and to other Independent members and to my colleagues - and, indeed, to Mr Connolly. I produced those figures in full. I did not selectively quote them. So I think it is, with respect, unfair to suggest that in some way I did not produce the full set of figures; I did. I quoted every figure, every document that has been produced to me from the Australian Institute of Criminology. I think it is regrettable that that suggestion was made.
The point being asserted by us is that you cannot use six-monthly figures to draw any conclusions about a full year's figures; that a full year comparison must be made. The best way of doing that is by taking monthly rates, working them out across a year and then comparing them with a progressive monthly rate for individual months. Mr Connolly does not take the point, but I maintain that that is a standard which we ought to be setting and maintaining in this Assembly as a standard to which all Ministers ought to be adhering. If I am setting too high a standard for this Government or for the Assembly, that is very unfortunate, but I would hope that it is a standard to which members of my party could adhere if they were on those benches.
As far as the question of burglary is concerned, I think the Minister was sort of saying that he did not say on 24 March that all governments were continuing to face steady increases in housebreaking. Well, I can only say that the Hansard record from which I have drawn my comments clearly says:
... every government in Australia ... has faced and continues to face steadily consistent increases in ... housebreaking.
If he had admitted that he had not seen the figures and had said, "Look, I was wrong about that", I would accept it; but, again, the Minister does not do that. He maintains, apparently, that everything he said on that previous occasion was correct. Retreating behind bland assertions, irrespective of whether they are well based on the facts or not, is a device that I suppose any government is entitled to use; but, with respect, it is not the best way of producing open, accountable and accessible information from governments, and I am certainly disappointed that that should be the case. The motion, Madam Speaker, I think ought to be passed, but I hope that, in putting this forward - - -
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .