Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I missed the interjection, but I am sure it was very amusing. It is a concern that we all have—to reach out, to listen to concerns in the community and, where they are genuinely felt, to respond to them. A big part of the response is to look at our responsibilities and the responsibilities of state governments. I think all of us in Victoria are concerned about the increase in a range of crime statistics, most particularly family violence. I am very proud of the work of the state government, first in opposition, with now-Premier Andrews instituting the Neave royal commission and then committing to implement every single one of its recommendations. I do not think that there is a single act a state government in Australia could do that would have the same effect of crime reduction as that.

In turning to the complex issues which sit beneath this rhetorical motion, it is critical to note that it was actually in 2011 that most Victorian crime statistics started to increase and increase dramatically. That was under the then Baillieu, soon to be Napthine, government. Trying to repair the failure to invest in community safety under the Liberal government has been a challenge that the Andrews Labor government has confronted.

It is only Labor governments in Victoria that have funded frontline policing. We are starting to see a turnaround in response to that. In particular, we see youth crime now starting to go down. There is a contrast between the measured approach of the state government and the shameful fearmongering of the state opposition, which has caused international damage to Australia, as well as damaging communities. What we do not need in a debate about community safety is attention-grabbing and irresponsible statements like those of Matthew Guy or indeed the exploitation of programs like the Safer Streets Program for political benefit. On this side of the House, we are interested in a serious conversation—a conversation with community, a conversation with police, a conversation with state and territory governments, but a conversation that is based on fact and based on a sense of our responsibilities as federal parliamentarians.

See this speech in context