Page 249 - Week 01 - Thursday, 18 February 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Australia and throughout the Western world does, unfortunately, rub off on this community. We do not dismiss that; we do not get hysterical about it; and we do not try to pretend that we are going to put more money back into the police budget when our leader says that we have not. Opposition members need to be very careful about that because Mr Kaine consistently says, "You treat the police budget the same way as you treat other budgets; if you are achieving across-the-board savings in government, the police cannot expect to be exempt".
MR STEVENSON (4.02): Perhaps the simple question in looking at the police force and whether or not it is adequately funded is whether or not it is safe to live in Canberra - whether or not crime is increasing. As Mr De Domenico presented the details - I do not need to go into them again - crime is increasing in Canberra. A suggestion that more crime is being reported is not necessarily valid. There are also studies that show that, as particular offences become more prevalent, fewer people report crime in those offences, for a couple of reasons. Basically they feel that it may not do any good; there are too many of those offences about. If we look at the basic role of government as being one to protect the life, liberty and property of citizens, from that viewpoint policing or security would be a priority above the vast majority of other things. That is a reasonable viewpoint. People in Canberra are overwhelmingly supportive of police and of not having police budget cuts. In a survey we took, 81 per cent did not agree with the police budget cuts; I believe that some 12 per cent did.
I certainly understand Mr Connolly's statements about the number of police per head of population, but the key question we must look at is: What is the crime situation? Are there problems? There are problems. If there are problems it must be handled. This has been going on since the advent of self-government, and I am not saying that crime has been increasing because of that.
Mr Connolly: It has been going on since 1900, Dennis.
MR STEVENSON: The stats have been increasing more rapidly in the last three years in the case of a lot of these offences. As I said, I am not indicating that self-government is the reason. I would like to, but that is not correct. We cannot say that. But there are some grave concerns around Canberra. In Garema Place at this very time business operators are considering employing private security. What sort of a situation is it where, in the heart of the city in Canberra, we have local shopkeepers so concerned about a lack of policing, or so concerned about the level of crime, or so concerned about the safety of their customers and also of themselves and their staff that some, of an evening, will not walk up to their vehicles by themselves? There is no doubt that we have a problem.
With increasing crime, one could raise a very good argument that the budget for police should be increased. I am as concerned as anybody about spending taxpayers' money, but if there is one area where they really want it spent it is on their security. They do not agree with budget cuts and they have not been consulted in these areas. I know that the cuts are not large; however they are having an impact. As New South Wales police officers we always looked to the ACT and we considered it to have the finest police force in Australia. One of the reasons, of course, is that it is well funded, but are the people of Canberra to expect anything less? When I talk about self-government, is this one of the consequences of having self-government? Will the police no longer be funded as was the case prior to that when the Federal Government accepted its constitutional responsibility for looking after health, education, and law and order in the Capital Territory?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .