Page 4965 - Week 16 - Tuesday, 26 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The response states:
The Government has successfully negotiated ... budget reduction without loss of a single position from the ACT region.
I do not really think that is a response to the recommendation. The recommendation was to ensure that community policing was not materially affected. I would have thought that perhaps a little more detail would have been forthcoming in relation to those recommendations, and I do not think that occurred.
It is always difficult for us. The Estimates Committee consisted of a number of members. We made quite distinct recommendations. Not one of them was taken up in dollar terms, and I really wonder whether the Government gave those recommendations any consideration at all. As I said at the outset, I am delighted to think that the police shopfront services are going to be retained and that the crime prevention program will continue. It goes some way to ensuring that that visible police presence is available.
MR STEFANIAK (10.12): It is interesting; I might have actually succeeded with this amendment within about 20 minutes of moving it. My information today was that there were big problems with the shopfronts; but, if Mr Connolly reckons they will be maintained, that is good. As to the second part of the motion, in relation to the crime prevention strategy, I hope that he abides by what he has said here tonight.
I will not go into any great detail on the question of the 42 positions and whether that $3m came from what the Police Association said was the $57m they were getting out of a $1,417m budget, or whatever. The debate over the police budget has probably been an interesting learning experience for Mr Connolly. I am heartened somewhat by some of his more recent pronouncements in relation to it. He might understand the needs of policing a little better than when he started - certainly than when this budget debate started.
However, I would hate to have Mr Connolly feel that I was deliberately not using my favourite quote about the first responsibility of government. For your benefit, Mr Connolly, I still maintain that the first responsibility of a national government is a strong defence force. I will be interested to see whether John Hewson can produce the $300m extra going to the teeth of the armed services, cut $500m from the bureaucracy, and have a net saving of $200m. He may or may not be able to do that. I hope he can; personally, I hope he will give more than $300m extra to the armed part of the armed services.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .