Page 3987 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 29 November 2022

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

why we continue to partner with Women’s Health Matters to ensure that they can continue to provide appropriate and accessible information to support women in their pursuit of health and wellbeing. The Women’s Health Matters website lists the key chronic conditions that impact women the most, which includes a number of autoimmune disorders, and provides advice on how to access the right care and locate support services, including organisations relevant to specific conditions and autoimmune diseases, to manage symptoms.

As I stated at the beginning, this motion is important in highlighting an issue that does not always get the focus it requires. While the treatment pathways, integration of services and our non-government partners are some of the best in Australia, we can always do more. While Ms Orr may not be with us in the chamber today, her commitment to this issue is absolutely laudable, and this motion, I hope, will continue to drive improvements in this space. I look forward to reporting back to the Assembly on the work next year and continuing to drive the improvements across our health system. I commend the motion to the Assembly.

DR PATERSON (Murrumbidgee) (5.10), in reply: Firstly, I would like to thank Ms Orr for bringing this motion to the Assembly and for her leadership in telling her story previously, which I think is incredibly empowering for other people experiencing autoimmune disorders in the ACT. I would also like to thank members for their tripartisan support of this motion. I think that is really important. As Ms Orr said in the speech, as there is no peak body for autoimmune diseases in Australia, I think it is really great that the Assembly was able to stand up today in tripartisan support to raise awareness for autoimmune disorders in Australia.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

ACT Policing—resourcing

MR HANSON (Murrumbidgee) (5.12), by leave: I move:

That Mr Gentleman correct the record and apologise to the Assembly for claiming the ACT is not the lowest funded police force in the country.

We were all here in question time, so we know the background to what has occurred here. Mr Cain asked a question and, in response to that, Mr Gentleman said that we were not the lowest funded police force in Australia. But, when you look at the evidence and the statistics, it is clear that we are. Mr Gentleman might be able to argue that there are good reasons for that. He might say that we are a small jurisdiction or whatever the argument is, but that is just a justification for us being the lowest funded police force in Australia. It does not mean that we are not.

He cannot come to this place and assert things that are not true, based upon the evidence. I will go to the latest RoGS report. When you look at total recurrent expenditure for the ACT it is $188.6 million. When you look at the other jurisdictions, for most of them, it is exponentially higher: New South Wales, $4 billion. The next lowest is Tasmania, which is about double that expenditure. What I am quoting from is the RoGS report, table 6A.1. Capital expenditure, again, is the lowest. It is well below the average of Australia and below every other jurisdiction. Then there is

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video