Page 4035 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 24 October 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
have been expressed in the past about the reliability of expenditure data provided. The level of expenditure now identified represents a further large increase due to the inclusion of superannuation costs which will be treated separately by the commission, salary changes introduced as part of the restructuring of the AFP, and the inclusion of program costs such as Comcare premiums not previously included but properly attributable to policing.
The Grants Commission assessed ACT expenditure in 1986-87 as $6.12m, or $23.50 per capita, above the level necessary to provide a level of service comparable with the States. In other words, this was about 26 per cent above the standard level. That is something that has to be addressed. We have a unique police force here, and we probably have a quite significant input to make in November-December to ensure that the level is maintained in the ACT.
It would be inappropriate to pre-empt the outcome of the commission's current inquiry. The matters that the commission must consider are complex and include: retained Commonwealth powers over terms and conditions of staff and salary levels; head office costs of the AFP attributed to the ACT, and costs of responding to national capital concerns in the ACT. If you go to Parliament House, any national demonstrations and other national functions here, you will see the ACT component of the AFP, the general duties people, looking after the function. That is something that has to be, and is being, looked at. The findings of the current inquiry will depend on the commission's treatment of these issues which are vital.
The ACT has put the view that the Commonwealth's continuing financial responsibilities should be commensurate with its continuing policy responsibilities for ACT policing. This is reflected in the agreement that was signed by Senator Tate and Mr Collaery some months ago. Given the major changes in the costings of ACT policing since previous inquiries and the unique nature of the ACT police arrangements, we cannot attempt to anticipate the outcome of the commission's current inquiry. (Quorum formed)
Finally, having dealt with those financial arrangements, I had a bit of a chuckle at paragraph (3) of Mr Moore's motion, which reads:
the possibilities of crime prevention as an alternative and effective means of reducing the incidence of crime in the ACT.
It is a very nice motherhood statement. Perhaps Mr Moore should not have put forward his amendments last night because I do not think they would be terribly conducive to crime prevention. If he is really interested in crime prevention, I hope he will be voting with the Government when it knocks out Mr Wood's rather unfortunate attempt to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .