Page 889 - Week 03 - Thursday, 30 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
shopping centre precincts, rather than using the debate as an opportunity to discuss any issue they like as long as the word “police” is mentioned in it.
DR FOSKEY: Trust, Mr Corbell; that is the point I am making.
MADAM TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Dr Foskey, if you do not mind, I would like to rule on the point of order. The minister does make a point about the terms of the matter of public importance, which is about community policing. Dr Foskey, confine your comments as much as possible to the terms of the matter of public importance.
DR FOSKEY: As I said, I am talking about trust in community policing and how it works, and you will probably see what I am getting at. I do not think that the opposition shines with virtue on this matter, either. I refer to the terminology that Mr Pratt uses in his media releases and statements about this subject. I must say that they were somewhat ameliorated in his actual address. He makes strong references to public housing complexes and hooligan behaviour. It does sound like he is targeting the young and the poor in his media portrayal because, of course, this is the most obvious crime. This is crime that is visible. But this targeting of the poor does not help us build an inclusive society where crime is less likely to happen.
Mr Gentleman: Hear, hear!
DR FOSKEY: It makes many people feel alienated and angry. I do echo Mr Pratt’s call about ensuring that the ACT Policing unit of the AFP is adequately resourced to undertake community policing. However, it is becoming very difficult for members of the Assembly and the public to analyse whether ACT Policing is adequately resourced to conduct community policing, including in shopping centre precincts, because we do not have the facts at hand, only the glossy annual report of which I have already expressed criticism. I think that we need to look at documents such as the ACT Policing study, which actually looks at the capacity of ACT Policing to meet its objectives, which must include community policing in shopping centres.
We have asked the minister for police a number of times to make this report public. Each time, we have been told that it is under cabinet consideration. It has been so for nine months now and we wonder whether this report will ever be released. I submitted a freedom of information request and was told that it could not be released on the ground that its release could have a substantial adverse effect on the relationship between the AFP and the ACT government.
We need to know these kinds of things if we are to assess why the community has a particular perception. Let us be quite literal here. The government says that the opposition is talking about a perception. That perception continues to exist because we do not have information to the contrary. We have had a number of discussions with the Australian Federal Police Association over the last six months and it has convincingly argued that, because of national security priorities, ACT Policing’s capacity to respond to ACT community issues is diminished.
Every job that comes in must be prioritised, but it seems more and more that they are unable to respond to the smaller jobs, which I suppose includes shopping centres,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .