Page 1388 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 9 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
expect human rights to be particularly relevant whatsoever. An additional layer of bureaucracy is something we are seeing there.
Has that benefited anyone at all? Has that act benefited anyone at all? I have given instances on a number of occasions of several people, ordinary citizens, trying to access that act and utilise it because they thought their rights were affected being told basically that they could not be helped. What evidence do we have so far as to who has benefited from that act? It seems that a few people seeking bail may well have benefited, probably not all that many but some there. We are now dealing with a bill which will see would-be terrorists benefit from the act, but not law-abiding, ordinary Canberra citizens.
That is proving to be a very expensive and totally unnecessary extravagance of this government. I would suggest that if you want to save some money you could do so by scrapping the Human Rights Act and the human rights bureaucracy that goes with it, with a consequent saving of time for all the other areas of government and probably an improvement in real human rights that ordinary Canberra citizens can access. The act is a particular hobbyhorse of the Chief Minister and probably some of the more ideologically driven members of his government which does nothing for the ACT. Those are just a few comments from me on the state of justice and corrections in the ACT.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Planning) (4.06): I welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter of public importance this afternoon and I will address a range of issues across the justice and community safety portfolio. Let me start with policing, as it is a topical issue in the ACT at the moment.
Over recent weeks, we have heard arguments put forward for increasing policing resources to the extent that the number of police per 100,000 people in the population should match the national average. We have also heard arguments that the ACT should test who can “bloody well provide” policing services to the ACT, a quote attributed to Mr Pratt in the Sunday Times last weekend. I note the very speedy negative response of the New South Wales minister, indicating, “Thank you, but not interested.” In all of this, I think it would be fair to ask: do these arguments reflect a change in direction from that espoused by the previous Liberal government?
If we are being asked seriously to adopt the national average number of police per 100,000 of the population as the only measuring stick for ACT policing matters, then there is something seriously wrong with the way in which we shape public policy and apportion resources. The Productivity Commission published its latest figures in January of this year and they indicated that the national average was 289 police staff per 100,000 of the population.
The ACT is not the only state or territory to be below that national average. For example, if Victoria were to apply the national average as its measuring stick, it would be 1,343 officers short, using the same methodology. Conversely, the Northern Territory, which is above the national average, would have to lose 762 of its 1,340 officers. That only highlights that other states and territories do not use the national average as the only measuring stick by which to calculate their policing needs, and neither should the ACT.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .