Wilkinson Kate: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
Wilkinson Kate: Financial Review Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:637;Page:7918] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 In speaking to this Appropriation (2005/06 Financial Review) Bill I have to admit that it is somewhat alarming to study the annual report for the Police and note that the Police aim which should have been a realistic aim shows a 3 to 5-year outcome priority in four categories: to reduce violence to reduce burglary to reduce vehicle crime and to reduce organised criminal activity. Yet in all four categories the indicator shows an increase in crime not a reduction; a negative picture not a positive one. This Government has pledged to reduce burglaries yet the resolution rate for burglaries has been falling over the past 4 years. This Government has pledged to be tough on crime yet the figures simply do not bear this out. Over the past 12 months alone crime has increased by 7 percent yet this Government thinks crime is down. Violent crime has continued to trend upwards since this Government came to power. This is not a short-term statistical blip but a long-term trend. If members look at the figures since this Government came to power violent crime has increased by 26 percent. If members look at the figures since this Government came to power grievous assaults are up 54 percent. If members look at the figures since this Government came to power serious assaults are up 30 percent. In the past year alone violent crime is up 10.2 percent grievous assaults are up 19 percent homicides are up 31 percent kidnapping—abduction—is up 46 percent robberies are up 20 percent serious assaults are up 13 percent and the figures go up and up and on and on. 
The Treasury report itself states crime is costing this country $9.1 billion—that is $9.1 billion—and it is a sorry state to see that there has been no improvement whatsoever under this Government’s watch. The Law and Order Committee report in relation to the financial review noted concerns—and in fact the commissioner acknowledged those concerns—about organised crime and “accepts that the Police’s efforts in this area could be improved.” It further noted that “more effort needs to be directed into tackling organised crime.” So what do we do? Do we have more effort into tackling organised crime? No we have a plan to recruit more police which is laudable it is great but those police should not be recruited using lower standards. It is of extreme concern to read reports that Police National Headquarters admitted that recruits who failed some components of the training at police college were allowed into the workforce on limited duties until they had passed the relevant tests. 
So what does this Government do? Does it concentrate on organised crime? No it does not. It endorses a bill that will put even more pressure on our police force. It endorses a bill that will increase the number of criminals by making parents criminals if they smack their children. It endorses a bill with the suggestion that the police would have some discretion whether to prosecute if section 59 of the Crimes Act were repealed. 
It has been noted in earlier debates throughout the day that Mr Peter McKenzie QC says “A law that leaves a large area for police discretion is not good law and places both the police and courts in difficulty. It is unfair both to the police and those with whom they deal to be required to operate with a law that fails to give clear guidelines.” 
It is up to us to give those clear guidelines. Repealing section 59 on the terms of the bill does not do so. We should not be making the work of the police even more difficult by passing anti-smacking legislation that criminalises parents and justifies it by saying that the police have a discretion whether to prosecute. The police should be out on the street trying to reduce crime rather than trying to justify the exercise of a so-called discretion by answering a complaint to the Police Complaints Authority as to why they did not prosecute a parent for lightly smacking his or her child. That is the priority this Government gives to crime and not the proper priority to crime itself.