Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2227 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

the Government believes that we need to be very sensitive about the way in which we interpret those figures, but we do need to accept that what the community expects of governments and politicians is that they will deal with the basic problems occurring to individuals on the streets of Canberra, and that is a fairly fundamental concern of any government.

I accept and will speak in favour of the Legal Affairs Committee looking at the causes of juvenile crime; but I emphasise that, in our view, the primary responsibility of government has to be, in a sense, to deal in a reactive way with crime taking place in the community. If we were to say to a victim of crime, "We cannot deal with your problem because we are pursuing a preventative approach somewhere else", I think we would miss the point. I am not saying that those two things are inconsistent; I am saying that they need to be prioritised, and that is the way I would prioritise them.

It is true, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, that there have been some unwelcome trends in crime figures. Violent crime, in certain categories, is certainly up; but it is interesting to note, particularly in the context of the debate about the Domestic Violence (Amendment) Bill later today, that in fact domestic violence over the last two years has been down. The trend over the last two years has been downwards fairly consistently for domestic violence. I am not sure what to make of those figures, but I hope it is a sign of some impact of a number of measures that have been taken over the last few years by this and a previous government to deal with some of those issues in a preventative way.

I thank members for their support. I agree with Mr Wood that just putting police on the beat is not the answer to crime. Other devices need to be employed. Dare I say it; things like security cameras need to be looked at. I hope that members will be involving themselves in a sophisticated debate about the way in which we can deal with those problems. I am encouraged by today's debate that that is capable of occurring.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Proposed expenditure - Attorney-General's Department, $114,942,400 (comprising net cost of outputs, $46,647,200; capital injection, $3,090,000; and payments on behalf of Territory, $65,205,200) agreed to.

Part 16 - Emergency Services Bureau

Proposed expenditure - Emergency Services Bureau, $26,073,000 (comprising net cost of outputs, $21,361,000; and capital injection, $4,712,000)

MR WOOD (5.14): I wish to ask the Minister a question. I want to know when he is going to get the pilots licence for his helicopter. It is a significant event. I do not think there is anything in Mr Humphries's career in this Assembly on which he has placed more at stake than the acquisition of this helicopter. He has really put a lot on it. He set up a committee at one stage. I do not know whether it still functions or not, or whether indeed it ever functioned. It may be, from what I hear, that events are coming to a conclusion. It may be that we are not too far now from coming to agreement with the New South Wales Government to get this combined operation under way.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .