Page 2358 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 16 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I note that earlier this year Mr Humphries called on us to trim the police budget. On 8 July, in the Canberra Times Mr Humphries made it clear that there was no question but that there should be cuts to the police budget. He suggested that we should call in a consultant to ensure that we could achieve those cuts without affecting services. The do-nothing Alliance Government seemed to need consultants to do anything. Mr Kaine gave a speech at the Canberra University a week or so ago lamenting the fact that nothing happens in the development of public policy. That is not the case under Labor; we get on and achieve savings. We did not need to get consultants in. We have been working on these savings measures for many months, and I am confident that they will deliver the savings, that police will operate well within the budget, and that the standard of service they deliver to this community will continue to be excellent and will be more focused on community policing.
MR HUMPHRIES: I ask a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. Can the Minister tell us how much will be saved from the arrangements for accused persons appearing in court and how much will be saved from the technological developments in the provision of breath testing? And will the Minister put down his pen before he answers the question?
MR CONNOLLY: I got carried away by that grubby interjection. The savings will total $955,000; and we will deliver them. Unlike you failed lot in government, we did not blow our budget out. Two Labor governments delivered and brought in a budget with a surplus or on balance. The one Alliance budget blew it out. We will achieve that $955,000 saving.
Fyshwick Lease - Compensation
MR MOORE: My question is directed to the Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning. I gave him a little notice of this question. Considering that in your own education budget you have had to accept cuts in real terms, could you explain the expenditure of $700,000, being a settlement for block 3, section 28, Fyshwick, as recorded at page 1158, Gazette No. 31, dated 5 August 1992?
MR WOOD: This is a matter that is within my frame of knowledge because there are some significant elements attached to it. In fact, it is not $700,000, although that is what is in the Gazette; it is $1m all-up. It probably needs a little history. The administration declined to renew a lease for the Aarondale boarding kennels at Fyshwick. It had always been the expectation that on the expiry of that lease it would not be renewed, so that the lease could be offered for a more appropriate purpose in Fyshwick.
In the normal course of events, the Australian Valuation Office's valuation was sought to determine what compensation was properly payable to the lessee. Under CALA, that has always been the market value of the improvements on that property. The AVO told us that $350,000 was their worth. The lessee complained; he did not like that at all, and he appealed to the AAT, who heard it. Ahead of that, the Government paid $300,000, because we were not disputing that amount of it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .