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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Thursday, 24 June 2004) . . Page.. 2657 ..

MS DUNDAS (3.50): I would like to talk about the state of police numbers in the context of the entire police budget. People will feel unsafe and think that we are in need of more police, as long as people get up in here and scaremonger about the level of crime in the community. What we really need to do is talk about preventing crime. I believe the government has not done enough on this.

For the third year in a row the government has substantially underspent on crime prevention, while spending almost 10 times as much on prosecutions and going well over the prosecution budget by in excess of seven per cent. Annual reports show that this is not a new problem. In the Stanhope government’s first year in office the crime prevention budget was underspent by 20 per cent. The next year the underspend was 14 per cent. The final figures are not in yet for this year but it looks like, yet again, we will see an underspend of the crime prevention budget.

I believe the effect of this lack of prioritisation and support will become evident in future crime statistics. It is well documented that social factors almost always explain why someone ends up committing a crime. This is why most victims of crime oppose sending property crime offenders to prison and why crime prevention programs can work. We need to provide support for people likely to commit crime—those who cannot find a job and believe they never will, and those who lack ongoing family support. First-time offenders are likely to commit further crimes if we do not address the underlying problems that lead them to commit a crime in the first place. They require targeted support, providing an alternative to the downward spiral of crime, incarceration and unemployment.

I agree that community safety is a major issue of concern to many ACT residents, and I think everyone believes it is critical, in that sense, that we prevent first offenders from committing a crime in the first place, that we prevent first offenders from becoming repeat offenders, and that we divert people at risk of committing their first crime. The government needs to take more responsibility for ensuring that programs and projects are being delivered and that what we require of our police in their role as key providers of community safety and crime prevention is being delivered.

For some time I have been very concerned that too few police resources have been dedicated to crime prevention activities. When we have asked the government about this the government has indicated, “We are sorry but that is an operational issue for the AFP.” However, the lack of direction given by successive police ministers suggests that the government has not thought through how we can get the best value out of our contract with the AFP and ensure that the crime prevention programs are delivered.

I think we need to look at the underlying issue here. This matter of public importance is about the state of police numbers in the ACT. We need to ask ourselves, “Why do we need more police?” or, “Why do we need as many police as we have? What can we do to help police with the roles they are trying to carry out in the community?” That is why I am talking about crime prevention programs. If we have crime prevention initiatives working to support the community and diversion programs working to support those in need, then the police can get on and look at the larger issues they are there to deal with and we will have a society with less crime in it, which is a better outcome for everybody.

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