Crime Statistics in Australia

Some sections of society believe it is appropriate for Australia to have tough laws for specific crimes. Australia needs to adopt a “tough on crime” stance against serious crimes, which erode the fabric of Australian culture and safety - those involving terrorism, organised crime and environmental crime. There is a general misconception among society that the Australian crime rate is rapidly increasing. This attitude is in part attributable to the real-time media reporting and often sensationalisation of stories and facts relating to crimes. It leads to a belief that crimes are occurring at an increased rate compared to previous years.

The statistics collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics however, indicate that the number of offenders reported by police in Australia during 2016–17 decreased for the first time since 2011–12, down 1% since 2015–16, from 418,352 to 413,894. The Australian offender rate also decreased for this period, from 2,005 to 1,949 offenders per 100,000 persons. The statistics show that there has been an overall decrease in the crime rate, although intense media coverage of incidents leads the general public to believe there is more crime than there used to be.

During 2017, there were 176,153 victims of unlawful entry with intent, which represented a 7% or 12,604 decrease from 2016. This was the lowest number recorded since the beginning of the time series in 2010. Decreases in unlawful entry with intent between 2016 and 2017 occurred across a number of jurisdictions, most notably: Victoria was down 16% or 8,266 victims, South Australia was down 14% or 1,923 victims, Western Australia was down 9% or 3,385 victims and New South Wales was down 7% or 2,983 victims.

In addition, there has been further decreases in the rates of burglaries recorded by police over the years. Outlaw Motor Cycle Gangs (OMCGs) are one of the most high-profile organised crime groups, with an active presence in all Australian states and territories.Until recently, Australian OMCG have predominantly been limited to domestic activities. However more recently, there has been an increase in their international connections. Australian OMCGs are believed to be expanding offshore and cooperating with overseas chapters and other sophisticated and high threat organised crime groups operating within Australia and internationally.

The most recent assessment of OMCGs found that there are 40 active OMCGs in Australia, consisting of approximately 460 chapters and 4600-patched members. Queensland has recently introduced tough new laws targeting organised crime and specifically outlaw motorcycle gangs, child exploitation and fraud syndicates. The new laws have been implemented to tackle criminal association and make it an offence for criminals to associate with other known offenders in person or by conduct.

The Queensland government believes these laws allow probable organised crime and collaboration to be better managed. These new laws provide an example of the implementation of “tough on crime” stance in Australia. The tough new laws now allow the police to focus their resources where they identify the greatest threat, such as outlaw motorcycle gangs and any organised crime groups participating in fraud and/or child exploitation networks. The tough new restricted premises orders and regulation allow police to keep outlawed clubhouses closed and shut down and search other premises that are suspected of criminal activity. With an estimated 40 active motorcycle gangs across Australia, Queensland has taken the initiative to legislate a “tough on crime” stance relating to organised crime and pass new laws surrounding OMCGs.

Another issue becoming increasingly concerning in Australia is the incidence of big companies and corporations not following protocol relating to environmental laws. Often these businesses deliberately choose to incur fines associated with breaches of environmental laws, rather than change their practices. Once again the government of Queensland has introduced a tough new range of laws that is believed will act as a disincentive for companies to commit environmental offences. The government of Queensland has stated that the new laws will provide a far greater deterrent than simply fining companies. The most significant change the Queensland government has introduced in the new bill is allowing authorised officers of the Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) to enter business premises suspected of an environmental offence without consent or a warrant.

This new provision will enable an authorised person to enter land not only when unlawful environmental harm has been caused by the release of a contaminant, but also when they believe on reasonable grounds that unlawful environmental harm has been caused by the release of a contaminant. Most Australians would agree that it is a priority in today’s society for individuals and businesses to be environmentally conscious because climate change and global warming are a global issue. Therefore it may be considered appropriate for Queensland to introduce these new “tough on crime” laws to make it more difficult for companies and corporations from deliberately putting our environment at risk.

There are many new legislative policies in place to provide DERM with powers to combat these cunning offences. Terrorism is another area in which Australia is introducing tough new laws. At present, Australian governments are more interested in being perceived as tough on terrorists rather than actually combating the underlying causes that allow, in Australia’s case, the growth of home-grown terrorism. Australia’s common law of sentencing has had a long history that in general served many Australian communities well.

Sentencing terrorists has become a political peremptory as the new chapter is driven by the government wanting to be perceived as tough on terrorism. In response to the tough new laws on terrorism Australian government have proposed legislation that diminishes and removes traditional common law rights and privileges but also allows a lower level of criminality to be proved to establish guilt. This new “tough on crime” approach has been justified on the basis that a new approach is needed to fight terrorists who show little or no respect for traditional rights and values. The new laws were passed on 20 September 2018 and under the new laws, people who tamper with food could spend up to 15 years behind bars for the new offence of “recklessness” which will cover people who engage in hoaxes or contaminate food without the intent of hurting someone.

The harsh new penalty for contamination of food is in line with penalties for financing terrorism and possessing child pornography. There are many valid arguments as to why Australia needs to implement a “tough on crime” stance to address rising crime rates in areas of national interest including organised crime, child exploitation, environmental offences and acts of terrorism. However there should be a degree of caution when applying this stance in other areas. The Northern Territory introduced a “tough on crime” stance involving youth detention centres which resulted in serious negative effects on the youth in these institutions.

A “Four Corners” TV documentary uncovered cases of cruelty and a subsequent Royal Commission found the “tough on crime” stance was unnecessarily harsh.The former minister of corrections in the Northern territory, John Elferink applied his personal beliefs advocating “tough love” to the principles of youth detention centres. He introduced boot camps, enlisted the help of US Marines and expanded the range of restraints for use on the youth. Even after a series of serious incidents within the centres and an increase in escapes, the former minister ploughed on, asserting that “we are going to be a tougher regime, it’s going to be a firmer regime.”

The Royal Commission recently reported that such facilities result in many children leaving more damaged than when they go in. When stories of this dreadful abuse within the Northern Territory youth detention centres began to emerge with stories of children being assaulted in their cells and forcibly stripped naked, the Northern Territory government chose to ignore the stories. When six detainees were kept in windowless solitary confinement for weeks before being tear-gassed, the Northern Territory government bewildered the facts in order to justify their actions. When there were reports of Dylan Voller being hooded and strapped to a chair for close to two hours became public knowledge in October in 2015, the abuse became impossible to ignore and impossible to lie about. Instead, the Northern Territory government legislated to condone it.

The inmates in youth detention centres are still young and vulnerable. A large portion of the population in these detention centres in the Northern Territory are indigenous. The leaders and ministers in the Northern Territory community should have taken into consideration that youth crime is caused by complex socio-economic factors, and cannot be fixed by unimaginative retribution. Dylan Voller was hooded and strapped to his chair, he became the faceless symbol of all the other youth in the detention centres that are victims of this tough-on-crime rhetoric.

Of course, there are particularly sinister offences that require tough laws and punishment to match the crime, but there should be further discussion as to whether examples such as in the youth detention centre, are appropriate for implementation of the tough on crime stance. The youth offender rate decreased for the seventh consecutive year in 2016–17, according to figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Between 2009–10 and 2016–17, the rate fell from 3,339 to 2,330 offenders per 100,000 persons aged 10 to 17. More often than not many of these youth have had a hard upbringing and faced many challenges leading to them offending and being detained in a detention centre. There are many valid arguments supporting the rehabilitation of these youths back into society so they are better equipped than when they arrived.

Overall there is a place for a “tough on crime” stance in certain problematic areas of crime in Australia. There are valid and compelling arguments as to why Australia needs to introduce “tough on crime” laws in specific areas. There are strong examples such as in Queensland, to support the introduction of tighter laws to monitor organised motorcycle gangs and stop offenders interacting with other offenders as well as passing legislation to help name and shame companies and corporations that fail to comply with environmental laws to help stop them offending.

However there has also been tragic examples where reckless tough on crime stance has had serious negative consequences such as within the youth detention centre in the Northern Territory. Based on crime statistics, which indicate an overall reduction in the crime rate in Australia, there are limited circumstances where a tough on crime stance should be implemented (e.g. dangerous criminal activity and threats to national security). However, considered discussion and caution should be exercised in future when introducing legislation to adopt a “tough on crime” policy.