Page 1571 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 17 May 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Humphries continues to beat the drum that it is all the fault of this Government; that we have not adequately resourced the Federal Police and therefore crime is our responsibility. Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party has to squarely say at what level we should be resourcing the Federal Police. If the Liberal Party could - - -
Mr Humphries: Greater than we have now.
MR CONNOLLY: Better than we are now?
Mr Humphries: Yes.
MR CONNOLLY: That is a very deeply thought out position to take, Mr Humphries. Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party has to say at what level we should be funding police. If the Liberal Party could come into this place and demonstrate that this Government was funding the Federal Police at a lower level than equivalent communities across Australia were funding police, that we were neglecting our responsibility for law and order, they would have a strong indictment against the Government. But, Madam Speaker, they patently cannot do that. What the figures consistently show - and again we can look at the most recent update of the Grants Commission - is that we spend more per capita on policing in this Territory than does any State in Australia. Our expenditure is exceeded only by that of the Northern Territory.
Mr Humphries: But their rates of crime increase are lower than ours, too, Terry.
MR CONNOLLY: Indeed, their crime rates are lower. The jurisdiction with one of the lowest rates is Tasmania. They spend less on policing; therefore, if we spend less on policing, we will have crime rates like Tasmania's - QED! Madam Speaker, it simply does not work that way. If we were neglecting policing, we would stand indicted; but we patently are not. We are spending something like 14 per cent above the national average on policing. The Liberals say that that is not enough. How much more than the national average is enough?
Mr Humphries's simplistic "spend more, spend more" is quite out of kilter with what has for several years been a very responsible approach from the Liberal Opposition. I have quoted in these debates on many occasions the statements of Mr Humphries but, more significantly, those of the former leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Kaine. Mr Kaine has repeatedly said, "If you are going to impose cuts across the board, the police, like any other area of government, will have to accept their share of cuts". That was the Liberal Party's - - -
Mr Humphries: That was before crime rates were going through the roof, Terry.
MR CONNOLLY: Crime rates have been consistently increasing over a decade. When Mr Kaine was making those statements as Chief Minister in 1990, crime was higher than it was in 1989 or 1988. So the same indictment that you apply to me would apply to him. Mr Kaine realistically - and we saw quite a bit of realism when Mr Kaine was leader; they were days much lamented by this side of the chamber, and lamented by at least part of your side of the chamber too, I suspect - accepted that the police budget could not be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .