I am very pleased in this debate to follow the contribution of my friend the member for Hotham, the shadow minister for justice. But I am disappointed that we are having a debate on these terms, which do not do anything for anyone, in Victoria or otherwise. This debate is a waste of the parliament's time. What we have heard in the contributions from members opposite is them seeing themselves as commentators—or perhaps complainers—rather than as people interested in solving serious problems. I hope, over the rest of this debate, I will be proven wrong but I do not think that is very likely.
The member for Hotham described the contributions of government members in this debate as 'galling'. I think that is actually pretty generous when you have regard to the record of this government and reflect particularly on two things: the true state of Victorian state political decision making and its consequences over the past six or seven years and also our role as members of this federal parliament. The member for Hotham was correct to reflect on some of the key failings of the Turnbull government—and, indeed, the failings on the record of its predecessor, led by the member for Warringah—in imposing cuts that have had a very serious impact. These are things that should be reflected on in the subject matter of this debate.
I was very interested to see, in the litany of complaint that constitutes the motion before the House at the moment, reference to the Safer Streets program. Of course there is a role for CCTV; I think we all understand that. But this program has been an extraordinary failure. Its failure was set out clearly not in Labor terms but by the Australian National Audit Office, which found that 90 per cent of the program's funding had been allocated to government-held seats. It was the purest of pork-barrelling disguised as concern for community safety, which is something we have seen all too often from conservatives. That is what is so disturbing: at one level hysteria is being fanned, with people being made to feel much more afraid than they should be; on another level, under the cover of a debate about community safety, there are efforts to foment division and attack social cohesion, when we should be joining in the shared challenge of ensuring that all of our communities are safe. It is of concern to me and to all members on this side of the House, and I know it is of genuine concern to members—
An honourable member interjecting—
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.