Once out of an important job it appears to be easy to sound off at your successors aided by the reflections of an idyllic past. Politicians have a fabulous penchant for this ex- post-facto grandstanding, having transformed into sages as time obscures or forgets the errors and vices of their own day.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The latest to weigh into this field of advice is Victoria's former police commissioner Kel Glare. who was chief commissioner from 1987 to 1992. In lines that are sure to infuriate existing police command he has said his old police force has "lost the plot" when it comes to crime prevention. Mr Glare has said the crime wave sweeping Victoria wouldn't have happened under his watch and added the state "hasn't been well served by for some time" in terms of its chief commissioners.
This is a big call 25 years on but maybe worth deeper investigation. If Mr Glare or his community advocacy group has the solutions to some of the more complex issues besetting regional areas particularly ice and mental health induced crime as well as the rash of youth recidivism then they are certainly worth listening to but the earnestness of a desired outcome can easily obscure the complexity of its execution.
If his answer is simply to get tough on crime and “lock them all up’ then it has to be said the public has heard it all before. More importantly endeavours to pursue this strategy both here and overseas have failed to deliver the result a simplistic panacea dangles before a frightened public. Our own prison population in Victoria has doubled in little over a decade and yet has not reduced the crime rate. More holistic approaches including comprehensive early intervention and prevention must be part of a solution.
This talk serves the State Opposition well in what it sees as weakness in the government’s capacity to keep residents safe. But it is worth reflecting on the difference between perceptions of safety and the problems crime statistics highlight. Are we in danger? The relativity of the answer brings a more sobering light to an often emotional argument and what we can indeed do about it.
Advocacy groups know they have emotion, in particularly fear and a sense of powerlessness, on their side and this lends itself to the more colourful tabloid language like “crime tsunami”s. No community should live in fear but reducing the complex issues which undermine both the perception and the reality of this safety to sound bites serves little purpose in a long term solution.
