Page 949 - Week 03 - Thursday, 14 March 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I make one further point in relation to this matter. I can recall over the last few months some criticism - not too much, I might say - coming from the Opposition benches in relation to the cost of policing. Mr Collaery has given a figure of $54m. During the gun debate, which I was expecting Mr Stevenson to participate in a lot more than he did - - -
Mr Connolly: We have not seen him since then.
MR STEFANIAK: I have not seen him since he was here earlier. I saw some figures in relation to police on the beat and the number of police in America. These figures showed that America was the most violent country in the world in terms of countries where crime statistics are kept, with about eight times more murders than Britain, 150 times more burglaries than in Japan and similar types of figures. But they also showed that for one major crime in New York in 1950 there were about five police and now that has been totally reversed. In 1990 I think that for every three major crimes there is only one policeman at any given point in time on the beat.
The point of that is that the number of police in the United States has in fact dropped in relation to the increased population, and that has led to a significant increase in crime.
Mr Moore: You cannot draw that conclusion. Come on, Bill.
MR STEFANIAK: The conclusion in relation to that is - I say this to the Opposition in case they are thinking we should save $10m or $20m on policing - that the adequate policing of the Territory is, unfortunately, going to cost a lot of money. You might be able to tinker a little bit with $54m; you might not. But I would not like to see us attempt to save large sums of money in the policing area if it led to less effective policing of the Territory because, just as any nation's insurance policy is an adequate and strong defence force, for an internal community of a State or Territory, such as that of the ACT, its insurance policy against lawlessness is basically an efficient, effective police force. I really think we have to be very careful if we are talking about cutting sums of money from any part of the budget, and if there is any area that really should not be cut - because doing so can have disastrous effects - it is the area of policing.
The Attorney-General has done all he can in relation to the adequate policing of the Territory to date. He has established what I consider to be quite proper committees. I cannot see any need for an Assembly committee. At this stage it would be duplication. Really I do not think Mr Connolly has made out to us what on earth he really wants that committee to do.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .