Page 1773 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 4 May 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In a minute Mr Pratt will probably pop up and display his ignorance on the difference between counting the eyes and dividing by two, and full-time equivalents, but I look forward to dealing with that at the time.
This increase will enhance the capacity of the ACT police to respond to their general duties, and investigative and inquiry functions. The increase represents a continuation of the investment of the Stanhope government in increasing policing strength with approximately $6 million allocated over four years in the 2002-03 budget. Do you have your pencil and paper? You are not writing this down, Mr Pratt. Student, write this down. Six million dollars allocated over four years in the 2002-03 budget; $7.7 million allocated over four years in 2004-05. How much is that? Quickly Mr Pratt.
Mr Pratt: That is a pathetic number actually.
MR HARGREAVES: Yes, 13.7—good one—and now, $3.3 million over four years. For Mr Pratt’s information, this is enhancing on the base. You better write this down: the final budget of the Carnell-Humphries Liberal government delivered only 781 full-time equivalent police. The first Stanhope government increased this number to 799. On 1 July 2005, as a result of previous budget commitments, this number will increase to 829. With the new measures announced in the budget, this number will increase to 849 in 2008.
Are you ready? Are you writing this one down? You better write this one down, because I will quote this to you until you are blue. This is 68 officers more than the Liberals funded, and the highest number of police in the history of self-government.
MR PRATT: Mr Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Minister, how many police will be recruited over the next five years to meet the promised new 40 police plus attrition?
MR HARGREAVES: Mr Speaker may the good Lord spare me. Mr Pratt should know, because of his relationship with some of the “deep-throat” people, that the AFP contingent for the ACT is part of a very large police force. That large police force has 7,000 members; it is called the Australian Federal Police. I repeat: the Australian Federal Police.
The attrition rate is not affected by any of the numbers that I have just quoted; the attrition rate is covered by such things as lateral recruitment and recovery. If that cannot happen, the policing arrangement with the AFP is to have, over a year—wait for this—in 2008, 849 full-time equivalents. That is 68 more full-time equivalents than these people ever dreamt of. That is in a year. That is a guarantee under the arrangement. I will just wait while he writes this down because he is slow at that too.
We can also draw on the resources of the AFP at large, because it is a full-time equivalent. When there are significant operations in force, we have additional police. When there is a lull, we have fewer officers on. It is the full-time equivalent. You should know that Mr Pratt. Shame on you for not knowing that. When I was the shadow minister for police it took me about 16 minutes to figure that out, and it has taken you six months, because I have just told you. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .