Page 5861 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 7 December 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
On this topic of what is the most effective strategy to reduce assaults, the government’s guide to framing legislation makes the statement that “preventing assaults or other anti-social behaviour at an industry or professional level is a far more effective strategy than focusing on the offences”. This proactive, preventative approach is certainly something the Greens support. By far the best way to reduce assaults is to invest in on-the-ground strategies to prevent the crime before it occurs, rather than waiting to react after the event. This preventative approach really is in the best interests of all involved. I would point out that the bill that Ms Bresnan tabled this morning on workplace bullying takes that approach, and it is a good example of the action we need to take.
Another interesting example of proactive action on workplace violence is the action taken to reduce armed robberies against bank branches in New South Wales. In the 1980s and early 1990s there was a concerted effort to strengthen bank branches’ resilience against armed robbery. Practical strategies such as alarms that were easily reached by bank tellers, more targeted use of surveillance inside and outside banks and partnerships with police all helped to reduce armed robberies. These are referred to as “target hardening” and they worked to cut the number of robberies.
The unions have become involved through the use of union prosecutions which have also been successful. The Finance Sector Union were tired of having their members put through the physical and emotional trauma of an armed robbery. In one private prosecution in 2002 they were able to require banks to invest $100 million in improving safety standards. The result was a dramatic fall in armed robberies from 102 in 2002 to just four last year. It is a slightly different circumstance with union prosecution, but the example draws out the principle that I am trying to articulate very clearly: this type of preventative approach is better for potential victims, because it is far better to prevent a crime than to wait until after the event. That is in many ways self-evident.
It is also better for the taxpayer to invest in preventative strategies, because in the long run preventing crime costs the community less than dealing with it after the fact. Whether it is the costs of incarceration or the potential flow-on costs once the offender is released from prison, it makes sense economically to do everything reasonably possible to prevent the crime actually taking place in the first place.
I would classify this preventative approach as a smart on crime approach, rather than simply what is often described as a tough on crime approach. A smart on crime approach is one that looks at the root causes of crime and invests in preventative strategies, whereas a tough on crime strategy simply relies on harsh penalties to lock up offenders after the crime is committed. The Greens believe that such an approach simply does not work, and we believe the evidence backs this up.
This issue of how to best tackle crime is something the Assembly has already discussed this year in the context of sentencing. Where the Canberra Liberals and the government have agreed to increase maximum sentences, we have advocated for a different approach. I do not want to relitigate those points, but I am hopeful that as an Assembly we can today turn over a new leaf and support a preventative approach, more specifically a preventative approach to assaults against workers.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video