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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (14 June) . . Page.. 1736 ..

MR SMYTH: Yes, I am aware of the report Recorded Crime: Australia 2000 of the ABS. It is very important that people understand that it is for the calendar year 2000. The report does offer quite a valuable insight into how the ACT is performing relative to the other states and territories. The recorded crime statistics show that the ACT remained below the national average for 10 of the 15 recorded offence types, which included serious offences such as murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, driving causing death, assault, sexual assault, kidnapping, robbery, blackmail, and unlawful entry with intent.

Furthermore, the report indicated that ACT policing achieved some great outcomes last year, with the remarkable result when it came to car theft, for instance, of the rate being slashed by 12.1 per cent in the year 2000, thanks mainly to intelligent task force policing. That data is overshadowed by more recent data that the police force has been able to give me. It has advised that, for the period 1 July 2000 to 10 June 2001, stolen motor vehicle offences have decreased by an incredible 31 per cent against the corresponding period for the previous year. The police force has also advised that, over the same period, burglaries have decreased by 20 per cent.

The government realises that we need to do more work on crime and crime prevention. That is why there are a number of quite relevant initiatives, important initiatives, in this year's budget, including additional police for Gungahlin, an extra $1.5 million almost to maintain adequate levels of law enforcement, and another $246,000 for phase three of the family violence intervention program.

Lyneham tennis centre

MR CORBELL: My question is to the Minister for Urban Services. This morning, ABC radio carried reports that the deadline for the payment of outstanding creditors of Pacific Academy Sports Trust had been extended, apparently this time by Mr Hanna, to 29 June 2001. The initial deadline, of course, was set by the Chief Minister when calling in the development application and was 6 June 2001. That deadline was extended to 8 June 2001. All of those deadlines have passed without the outstanding payments being made to the creditors. In fact, the government has taken no action along the lines it announced when it first approved the application.

It was reported in the Canberra Times of 9 June that the minister saw no need to revoke the development approval. However, a spokesman for the Chief Minister is quoted in today's Daily Telegraph as saying, "The approval was conditional on the developer settling outstanding claims from contractors associated with stage one." Can the minister explain the contradiction between his statements that there is no need to revoke the call in and the statement of the Chief Minister of today that the approval remains conditional? What action, if any, does the government propose to take if the fourth, apparently self-imposed, deadline of 29 June is not met by Pacific Academy Sports Trust?

MR SMYTH: Mr Speaker, I am happy to give exactly the same answer I gave yesterday. If Mr Corbell had paid attention to what was said yesterday, he would realise that it is exactly the same question in another guise; a little bit of fairy floss around the edge does not change the content of the question. When the agreement was made, Mr Hanna said that he would make the payments by the following Friday-Monday to Friday, five days-but when it came to making the payments in terms of the acquittals

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