Page 923 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 20 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Going back to the New South Wales evidence, what it tells us is that, other than long-term strategies to reduce income inequality, the most practical thing to do to cut crime is to increase the likelihood that offenders will be arrested. Two specific parts of the liquor reforms do increase the likelihood of arrest. Firstly, 10 new late-night police have been delivered as part of the reforms. One very obvious and practical way to increase prospects of arrest is to increase police on the beat at the times and places the offences are occurring. Secondly, there have been new offences created aimed at drinkers who fail to leave a venue when requested and who have abused bar staff. These are new offences that previously were not covered and potentially the drinker could have walked away without punishment. These are not increases in penalty to existing offences; they are new offences which increase the likelihood the offender will be apprehended and reprimanded.
I note that 514 liquor criminal infringement notices have been issued by ACT Policing, 79 of which have been issued for the new offence of failing to leave a licensed venue and five for abusing, intimidating or threatening staff. The fine for failing to leave is $440 when issued on the spot and the fine for abusing bar staff is $220. So what the reforms are doing is increasing the likelihood of misbehaving drinkers being apprehended and issued with reasonably hefty fines on the spot.
Going back to the evidence from New South Wales, this is where we should be focusing. We should prioritise strategies that increase the likelihood of arrest, because it is this strategy that actually works to reduce crime and to prevent it in the future. It is this kind of proactive strategy that delivers results to the community.
To wrap up: evidence about crime really does allow politicians to deliver more results and less rhetoric, but only if we take the time to engage in the evidence and understand it. If we fail and we rely on simplistic slogans we risk making empty promises and missing opportunities to make real, on the ground improvements to the safety of the ACT. I am pleased to be able to bring this important matter before the Assembly this afternoon.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development) (4.02): Evidence-based decision making can and does reduce crime. It means money, time and effort is directed to the people and places that need it most. It is a critical process of information construction and gathering that draws together a broad range of quantitative and qualitative evidence to allow sound policy and program decisions to be made.
The ACT government utilises a multi-dimensional approach to building a broad base of evidence on which to tackle the challenge of reducing crime. The government is committed to building the most informed body of evidence possible in which to keep crime rates low in the ACT. It is about using what we know from the past and the present to improve the future.
This evidence is used to influence strategic direction, to inform policy, to continuously improve delivery of front-line services and to improve the methods used
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video