Page 2455 - Week 09 - Thursday, 17 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES: He must be, yes. Anyway, we do not know what the Government is doing today, but they will work it out in due course. It would have been nice to see some reallocation of those resources. To make sure that there is no confusion about this question which the Government is trying to generate, this Opposition does support sensible reductions in outlays in all areas where it is appropriate, including the police; but that means that we have to consider the appropriateness of outlays, particularly in the area of administration.
It is my understanding that at no time in the last four or five years has a comprehensive analysis been done of the level of "bureaucratic" - I use that word in inverted commas - assistance to police services in the ACT. As I understand it, somewhere between one-third and one-half of all people employed under the Australian Federal Police Act in the ACT are basically sitting behind desks doing white-collar jobs. I would say to the Government that there is very great room for a cut in the police budget, in the area of backup or bureaucratic support to the police without necessarily cutting the pointy end of policing. I am not saying that there is a particular way of doing this. What I am suggesting to the Government is that it do its study, that it do its analysis of how that might work. It has not been done, I am told, and I would like to see some effort made to address it.
Madam Speaker, as Mr Kaine has said, this Government is a sad reflection of lost opportunities. We have made criticisms of this budget which are quite similar to criticisms made of previous Follett budgets, and the reason is very simple: This budget continues the same kind of theme as previous Follett budgets. Let us make a small change here, a little change there, and make people believe that nothing fundamental or great needs to happen in the area of ACT administration and the provision of services to affect the way that we provide those services to the people of Canberra. But that is just not true. It is a deception. It is a lie which cannot be allowed to sit. This Government should be telling people, fair and square to their faces, "We need to take stock of our position and make changes which will reflect our economic position into the future".
We have not seen that happen from this Government. If we do not see it happen, whoever is in government in this Territory in four years' time, and it could be you - it is unlikely perhaps, but it could be you - is going to have to reap the burden of that inaction. It is inaction. If you cannot face up to that problem now when you have a window of opportunity, when you have just faced an election and you have secure numbers in this Assembly, when are you going to face up to it? If not now, when?
MRS CARNELL (5.07): Madam Speaker, this budget is a sham. No attempt whatsoever has been made to address the very real problems that beset the ACT. The budget strategy seems to be based on the hope for a Tattslotto win, but not even Tattslotto has a $120m prize. The Government is relying on another windfall like the unpredicted revenue increases that saved their bacon earlier this year. If it were not for the windfall gains in stamp duties, the Government would be in a much bigger mess. Ms Follett was lucky this time, yet the obvious lessons she should have learnt have not been learnt. We see the Government taking the same old approach to this budget - the do nothing and hope for a Tattslotto win approach. Maybe this is some new form of economic theory, but somehow I doubt it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .