Page 1491 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 10 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
probably we are seeing a change. However, I sincerely hope that we will not see a change from what I would characterise to date as an almost bipartisan tacit agreement that this will not happen in the ACT.
Law and order debates should not be subject to sensationalist claims or selective use of crime data. There are serious spin-offs from such approaches, not the least of which is the increasing perception that crime is out of control and, as a consequence, increasing community levels of the fear of crime. A consequence of that, particularly where the young and the elderly are concerned, is to seriously undermine quality of life, even to the point where people may feel it unsafe to leave their homes. We all have a responsibility, Mr Pratt, in that regard. I would be interested in receiving the assurance of other Assembly members that these ground rules are not changing.
Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, in his motion Mr Pratt uses Productivity Commission figures for the numbers of policing staff available to each state and territory to make a case that the ACT is not served well because it falls below the national average of police per 100,000 of population. The assertion inherent in this motion seems to be that the national average is somehow a clear and undisputed method for measuring police resources in the states and territories. I reject this.
The Productivity Commission publishes in its annual report on government services the numbers of police staff by way of sworn staff and unsworn staff, as well as combining sworn and unsworn staffing numbers. The last published figures for providing a comparison on jurisdiction and national average policing staff per 100,000 of population are those in the January 2006 report on government services. Mr Pratt asserts that the 2005 report indicates that if we were to apply the national average to the ACT then the ACT would be around 130 below sworn officer capacity. I am advised that those calculations are incorrect and that the data reported in the 2005 report would indicate the figure to be 110, not 130. So I assume that Mr Pratt is referring to the figures for the combined strengths of sworn and unsworn staff and not just sworn staff.
This is a significant issue. In the last 10 years all police services across Australia have shown a trend towards greater civilianisation of their work forces, and this reflects two underpinning concepts. The first is that police officers trained in the complexities of law enforcements should be freed up from a range of administrative tasks to do just that. While those administrative and corporate support functions are vital to the efficiency of policing, personnel other than sworn police can and should undertake them. Secondly, there is a range of operational policing tasks that lend themselves to being undertaken by specialists who do not need all the powers of a general duties officer to undertake their jobs. Examples of this include forensic specialists, intelligence specialists and communications and dispatch staff.
I think all members will understand that we need sworn police to undertake law enforcement roles, but we should also acknowledge the important contribution of those who are not sworn officers. So when the government looks at the adequacy and efficiency of policing resources in the ACT, we look at the sworn and the unsworn capacity.
In order that there be a debate on common ground, I suggest to members that we use the figures from the most recent Productivity Commission report of 2006 that states for the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .