Page 3833 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 4 December 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
think Canberrans want to see better services. They want to see improved support for people with disability. They want to see better support for our public schools. They want to see better public transport. They want to see a safer community. They want to see a helping hand offered to victims of crime. These are all initiatives that this bill puts in place.
I and my colleagues believe that Mr Mulcahy has it wrong. People do not want to see dramatic tax cuts. They do want to see better services. They do want to see a more caring, more compassionate, fairer community. This bill delivers on those very important commitments.
The standing committee’s report on this appropriate bill makes a number of comments in relation to my portfolio of Justice and Community Safety. Some of these strike me as a bit curious. One recommends:
… that the ACT Government consider reinstating the Occupational Health and Safety Commissioner as an independent statutory officer.
They always have been independent statutory officers. There has been no change to the status of that position. It strikes me that there seems to be some confusion on the part of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in relation to that matter.
Mr Mulcahy also took me to task for the issue of the provision, or lack thereof, of payments for pensions for judges. We have four resident judges in the ACT Supreme Court. Their retirements are quite infrequent. The practice of this jurisdiction—indeed, before we came to government—was for there not to be specific provision made within the justice portfolio for payment of pensions to retiring judges or their dependants.
Instead, the approach has always been for the money to be allocated as and when those obligations on the part of the territory fall due. These are not incredibly large amounts of money in the scheme of the territory’s budget; they are easily managed within the context of the territory’s cash reserves. Mr Mulcahy’s pedantry on this matter highlights his failure to understand some of the practical issues that you have to take into account when it comes to managing the government’s finances.
This budget provides for a wide range of new initiatives in the area of community safety. The objective is all about making our city a fairer and safer place. Whether it is victims of crime, people with older motor vehicles or people who ride motorcycles in our community, the government is keen to address issues around crime, in particular property theft. The crime reduction initiative outlined in this budget is one that I am particularly pleased to see supported by all members in this place.
The provision provides for 5,000 new subsidies for engine immobilisers across our community. We know that the older motor vehicles—those built prior to the mid-1990s—are those most likely to be stolen through opportunistic theft. We also know that those types of motor vehicles are most likely to be owned by people on lower incomes who cannot afford to get a new-model car, who cannot afford to replace their car regularly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .