Page 323 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 1 March 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Stefaniak becomes the self-appointed law and order spokesperson for the Liberal Party. He always took the view that this was all nonsense and that what we needed, according to one memorable statement, was to crack a few heads. I am pleased that Mr Humphries adopts a far more enlightened approach which recognises that we have come a long way in dealing with law and order strategies from that sort of antediluvian attitude of crack a few heads and apply a bit of force.
The problem can be simply stated. Crime rates across Australia and across the Western world have in the last 20 or 30 years steadily increased. Expenditure on police and justice systems in the equivalent period has also massively increased. It is clear that throwing massive resources at the law and order problem by throwing more police on the street does not work. The extreme example of this approach is to look at the United States, where massive police resources are poured into city streets, with massively armed police forces confronting massively armed criminal gangs. The streets of many cities in the United States are now literally battle zones.
About 10 years ago, when there were some difficulties in the south of France, some youth riots in Marseilles, the then mayor of Marseilles decided that there needed to be a different approach to the way the state responded to criminal behaviour generally, but particularly criminal behaviour involving young people. Mr Bonmaison, the then mayor of Marseilles, was really the originator of the crime prevention strategies that have been developed in continental Europe over the last decade and were picked up in Australia very strongly by the former Labor Attorney-General, Chris Sumner; trialled very successfully in Adelaide, to the point where the incoming Liberal Government in South Australia is quite enthusiastic about maintaining those crime prevention strategies; and picked up in New Zealand by the then Labour Government and very severely criticised by the conservatives, who now, in government, are continuing with these strategies.
We talk about situational crime prevention; we talk about environmental crime prevention. We have established in the ACT, as they have done in these other jurisdictions, a community based committee. It is chaired, as members would recall, by Mr Ken Begg. We have produced our draft community safety strategy, which I think I have circulated to members. Certainly Mr Humphries was there at the launch. We have set up a safer Civic subcommittee of that body. Mr Humphries will say, "Committees, committees", but we are seeing some action. Ken Begg and a couple of his key advisers there - - -
Mr Humphries: Is this relevant, Terry?
MR CONNOLLY: Given that the MPI is on crime prevention and the need to promote preventative policing and community safety, I thought this was highly relevant. Mr Humphries may think it is irrelevant; he can just sit and listen.
The results of Ken Begg's safer Civic committee are already flowing through. They went out one evening in December and highlighted a number of problem areas in Civic, particularly the lighting in what is known as the pits car park in Civic and the old public toilet block at the back of the Canberra Theatre, which they identified as an area where young people were congregating and some problems occurring. They recommended that we demolish that. We have done that. They recommended that we improve lighting at the pits car park. We have done that. They are developing a range of strategies for alcohol-free events for young people.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .