Page 1504 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 10 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Hargreaves has previously boasted that, with an increase to the police budget of about $26 million over four years, the government had recruited an additional 60 police. Mr Smyth touched on this. Yet the loss rate of police over the same period, I am reliably informed, has been somewhere in the vicinity of 81. What is the real net position? Was there a net increase? Was there a net loss of 21? I do not quite know that, and that is why we want to see what these reviews are saying. Over a four-year period, $26 million spent, including for additional police, is a lot of money spent. What have we got for that? That is why we want to see what these reviews state.
Mr Corbell’s comment that the Australian benchmark standard is irrelevant to the ACT is a very interesting shifting of the goalposts. Mr Smyth pointed out the geographic factors here versus other jurisdictions. Yes, they may be points taken into consideration, but let us have a look at the Canberra city/state. We have a population of 330,000. The urban density is another major factor when you consider how many police are required per capita.
I do not know why police authorities in this country, justice authorities and others who look at Australian policing created a benchmark of 289 police per 100,000 head of population if certain jurisdictions are going to ignore it. Is this not a best practice standard? Are we not looking at a benchmark which jurisdictions should be aiming at? Is that not the average benchmark at least, regardless of whether you have got sea ports; tens of thousands of square kilometres of rural space; an urban density, as we have in Canberra, which a lot of other jurisdictions do not have; and a federal seat of power which brings with it all the challenges that a police force has to face up to in terms of protection?
I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that the national benchmark is a true factor to be considered and one to be aimed for. I know that Mr Hargreaves, when he was aiming at that figure in election promises, probably did that for a very, very, very good reason—the point that Mr Smyth pointed out earlier.
The ACT community expects, and rightly so, that the government will ensure the provision of adequate police numbers to manage the territory’s community policing needs. While the government boasts about their adequate provision of police numbers, indicators clearly show people’s satisfaction with ACT police services is continuing to fall.
Figure 5.6 of the Productivity Commission report 2006 shows that satisfaction levels have shown a declining trend from around 70 per cent in 2002-03 to around 60 per cent in 2004-05. Figure 5.23 (b) of that same commission report shows that the ACT has the highest level of concern, at over 70 per cent, of house break-ins being a problem in their neighbourhood. It is a concerning figure.
However, the most alarming figure coming out of that Productivity Commission report is figure 5.27, which shows that the ACT has the highest level or armed robberies, at 125 per 100,000 people. We have the highest level of armed robberies in Australia—but not just the highest levels, the highest levels by an astounding 40 per cent.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .