Page 1679 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 13 May 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR RATTENBURY: I do appreciate and agree with the general thrust of what Mr Hanson is saying—that is, that the police perform a very important role in our city and that they need to be adequately resourced. We need to put this motion into perspective, in its proper context, when we reflect on that, which I think is a point of general agreement.
Firstly, I am advised that ACT police funding does continue to grow year by year. What changed in the 2013-14 budget was that the rate of growth in ACT Policing was reduced. It is worth clarifying that the change is not so much a slashing of funding, as Mr Hanson has referenced in his motion, but rather a change in the rate of growth of funding for ACT Policing.
The second point to make is that ACT Policing, as is expected of all other agencies in the ACT government, is expected to find reasonable savings over time. Like other ACT agencies, ACT Policing has had a general savings measure applied—as it is more colloquially known, an efficiency dividend. It was applied over four years, starting in 2013-14. The intention of the measure is to improve the efficiency of structures and operations within ACT Policing.
Just as agencies for which I am responsible have been subject to savings over time, I think it is reasonable that the police, as a government agency, also undergo an exercise to find efficiencies. I do not think there is any reason to expect that the police cannot make efforts to find efficiencies. We heard the Prime Minister on radio this morning saying that within health budgets efficiencies can be found. I think it is entirely inappropriate to say that certain agencies are not expected to look at their own operations and find ways to improve.
In some obvious ways, police are different from other agencies, with their front-line enforcement and protection role. But like other agencies they run offices, management strategies, training, travel and a whole host of functions typical of government or government-funded agencies. And of course other ACT government agencies also have front-line services, whether it be health or—sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry; I was making some signs to my staff. I apologise.
MR RATTENBURY: That is all right. As I was saying, other—
Mr Hanson: Is that parliamentary?
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, probably not parliamentary. I apologise.
MR RATTENBURY: He was behind me, so I was confused. Some other ACT government agencies have front-line functions—Health, Territory and Municipal Services, Education and Training. All of these areas have front-line roles that are different but, nonetheless, public facing—just like the police. All of those agencies are expected to find ways to make sure that they are delivering the best possible value for money for the taxpayer, and I do not think ACT Policing is exempt from that approach.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video