Page 2780 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
provided additional funding to allow for the recruitment of staff, it is worth noting that this follows a cut last year. In 2005-06, the budget was $5.8 million, down from $6.6 million in 2004-05. The government increase this year is simply returning to those levels of two years ago. Whilst one-off, complicated matters, as the government has argued, may have caused the higher levels of two years ago, my colleague Mr Stefaniak was correct when he said during the estimates process that complicated matters requiring expertise will always arise and that funding levels should be maintained and improved upon to cope with them.
I believe that it is important to recognise this increase in funding, welcome as it may be to a return to the levels of two years ago, may not solve all the problems of recruiting and retaining prosecutors in the DPP. The difficulties of attracting senior lawyers capable of handling complicated cases efficiently remains. Given the continued criticism about the efficiency of the ACT court system, the government must continue to address this problem and achieve a better state of affairs.
I would be remiss if I did not use this opportunity to comment on the government’s commitment to a new jail. I am pleased to support Mr Stefaniak’s amendment in this regard. There are two issues in this particular matter. There is the cost of the jail and then how much the current government is prepared to pay to fulfil its social goals or, indeed, how much they expect the people of Canberra to do so. The minister said during the estimates process:
We have said very clearly that the budget is the budget and there is no varying from that amount. So $128.7 million—
which was, I think, $110 million when the campaign was on—
is the amount of money that is available to build the prison; we won’t be appropriating any more.
Given that the budget is already forecast to be in deficit to the tune of $147.5 million, I hope that the government will not be forking out more on its best-practice prison.
One has to recognise that this government has been under financial pressure. Given the government’s track record of failing to contain costs in other areas, I need to re-emphasise that we, as the opposition, with Mr Stefaniak as our leader, will be leading the monitoring of the progress on the construction of the new jail and the costs. It has also been pointed out that there are concerns about the future cost associated with the prison. The Attorney-General, during the estimates process in relation to the cost per prisoner with the new jail, said:
The overall cost will remain the same. So the issue for us as a community is the decision to spend the capital amount on building the new facility and what outcomes we will achieve from doing that.
I do not know that the Attorney-General is right in saying “us as a community”. Certainly I echo what Mr Stefaniak said, in that much of the anecdotal feedback I am getting from constituents is that the community is more concerned about schools and the health system than having the best prison for human rights in the whole of Australia. The
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .