Page 4446 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 21 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is abundantly clear what happened this year with the Alliance Government - eventually. I say "eventually" because when I first came into this place in May one of my early questions to Mr Collaery was: How often had he met with Senator Tate on negotiating this instrument? A number of times Mr Collaery referred us to the negotiations. Well, in May he had not met with Senator Tate. The preliminary work on this police contract had been done under the Follett Government.
What happened was that the Commonwealth agreed to provide the police and pay for it this year. The question that we need to address is, for future years, when we will have to fund it ourselves with the ordinary State or Territory level of supplementation through the Grants Commission: How much money do we want to spend on a service for this community? What does the community want to spend, and what service does the community want to receive in return?
While we have confidence in the competence of the Treasury officers who will be undertaking the officer level review with their Federal counterparts, that is really not adequate to address that question, and it is that question that the Labor Opposition and Mr Moore have sought to have brought before a committee of this house. We are not dealing with a simple bookkeeping exercise of how much is being spent and how much the Commonwealth should pay, but with the more fundamental question of what level of services we want, or demand, as a community from our police, and what level of resources we are prepared to give to the police to provide that level of service in return.
It is a fundamental question, it is most appropriate that it be asked, and it is most appropriate that it be asked and debated in the full glare of publicity. It is not a question concerning the Grants Commission or of compromising our position in negotiations with the Commonwealth; it is a question of what level of services we as a community want from our police and what level of resources we as a community are prepared to put into that policing. I hope the Government will allow that full and open debate on the issue in the next year.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Collaery, you will need to seek leave to speak a third time. The Minister in charge of this Bill is the Treasurer.
Mr Collaery: I seek leave to speak.
Leave granted.
MR COLLAERY (Attorney-General) (5.04): Mr Speaker, Ms Follett said that the Opposition had not had "the opportunity to scrutinise the arrangement". Although she was not present at the Estimates Committee hearing on 9 October 1990, her representative, Mr Connolly, was, as was Mr Moore. There are 29 pages of transcript of questioning here. There was very detailed and lengthy questioning of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .