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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Thursday, 24 June 2004) . . Page.. 2655 ..

Whatever way you look at it, this town has grown a lot since self-government. It has grown a lot since the agreement was signed with the police in 1990. Since the AFP came into existence on, I think, 21 September 1979, we have not seen a huge increase in numbers in real terms. Although the population of Canberra has probably doubled, the number of police has gone up by only about 25 or 30 per cent, whichever way you want to look at the numbers. Quite clearly that is not enough, because crime has certainly grown in that time in Canberra, although compared with other cities we are fairly safe.

Mr Wood mentioned that the number of burglaries is coming down. The police will tell you that there are two reasons for that, one being very good policing operations like Halite and another being that good, sensible laws have been passed, specifically section 9A of division 2.2 of the Bail Act, which I brought in—I think it is section 10D, now that you have reorganised the sections. That section was brought in specifically at the request of the AFP, because they said it would have a huge effect on crimes such as burglary. Indeed it has had an effect on several other crimes too.

Mr Pratt is quite right. Basically, he talks about the number of street offence type crimes being up—assaults and other crimes that occur quite often out there on the streets over a wide-ranging area of Canberra, including armed robberies. A greater police presence—simply more police just being able to get out and about—will have a very significant influence on those crimes. It will also have an influence in perhaps being able to counter the acts of vandalism that Mr Pratt talks about.

If vandals or criminals of any description have a pretty good idea that they might get caught in the act—that they might be interrupted by police—that has a big deterrent effect. It is like drivers who might otherwise speed. When you go to Cooma during the snow season you know you are going to see about four or five police patrol cars, for sure. There is a police presence and there is a real likelihood that you are going to get caught by the police. That is terribly important.

There are two factors that someone who is going to commit a crime are going to be largely affected by more than anything else. First and foremost, “Am I going to get away with it; am I going to get caught?” If there is a distinct possibility that, because we have a reasonable number of police, people are going to get caught, that is often enough to stop everyone except the most desperate. The other thing is that, if you do happen to get caught, what happens to you? That is another area that needs addressing around here, of course: very weak sentences for serious crimes. That is where I think our courts really need to lift their game. The first component is that people have to get caught, to even get to that stage. That, of course, is where our police force comes in.

In respect of some of the targeted crimes where they have been able to muster the numbers, they have done a particularly good job. Operation Halite and Operation Anchorage are examples of those, and there are other crimes that have been solved as a result of magnificent work over the years by our police force. We are letting down the citizens of this town whom we, as legislators, have a duty to protect. I would argue, as I have argued before in this place, that our first and foremost duty is the security of our people.

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