Page 1572 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 17 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
taken in isolation, that realities that apply to every other area of government had to apply to policing, and he consistently said that the Government's approach of treating the police budget like any other budget was quite appropriate. Now, some months out from an election, we see the Liberal Party saying, "Spend more on police".
Madam Speaker, that is a simplistic position from the Opposition. It is a bit like their approach on health. Mrs Carnell says, "Spend more. Build another hospital". It is cheap Opposition politicking. They have not really developed a strategy on dealing with community safety. They are grudgingly going along with the range of initiatives that this Government has in place for a safer Civic and the range of liquor-safety initiatives that we have recently announced.
The way we have achieved our 2 per cent savings in the police budget is something that the Opposition has been notably silent on in recent years. It has been a remarkable achievement of working with the police association and management to deliver savings and efficiencies and to ensure that at the sharp end of policing we are delivering services that are as good as they ever were. Our savings have come from areas such as the breathalyser unit, where we were wasting funds through specialised support units, and the voluntary attendance at court scheme. Instead of having police officers charging around the community effectively as postpersons, we are doing a lot through the mail. It is a remarkably successful scheme. Interstate police commissioners who were at a conference here in Canberra some weeks ago are very interested in following that scheme to achieve savings themselves. We have demonstrated that you can deliver an efficient and effective police force for Canberra at only 14 per cent above the national average expenditure. How much more is enough? Mr Humphries says that by spending 14 per cent above the national average on policing this Government is somehow neglecting its duty. Madam Speaker, this Government remains committed to a safe Canberra, and its record will show that.
MR KAINE (4.19): Madam Speaker, I must say that Mr Connolly disappointed me in his response to Mr Humphries's opening remarks in this debate. Instead of confronting the issue, he resorted to sophistry. First of all, he denigrated - - -
Mr Lamont: You used that line last week.
MR KAINE: It is a good word. You should look it up in the dictionary and find out what it means. Mr Connolly says, "The statistics are irrelevant. They do not really mean anything". He writes down the statistics to the point where they are irrelevant, and then he overstates or overemphasises what Mr Humphries has put in other instances. For example, in his concluding remarks he said, "The Opposition wants to spend more, spend more, spend more". That is not what Mr Humphries said, and it is not inherent in the matter of public importance before us. Mr Humphries did not say that we should spend more. He just said that for one year we should arrest the downward trend of expenditure on maintaining a police force in the ACT because there is evidence that there is an increasing rate of crime.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .