Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (3 May) . . Page.. 1428 ..

MR HARGREAVES (continuing):

What we are going to see in real time between now and the end of the year is a whole heap of little white marks popping up on the road; we are going to see line marking. I have to say that, if that came forward in the Appropriation Bill 2001-02, my attitude probably would be a little different, because I do not see the urgency in that appropriation bill. My understanding of the bringing forward of these sorts of pieces of legislation is that it is to provide money where costs have been unavoidable, but I do not see how they are unavoidable if we can wait an extra six weeks. I am also concerned about the extent to which these little white lines are appearing in road marking and I have to ask myself why, Mr Speaker.

It was drawn to my attention that in some of the roundabouts round town the white lines are actually being marked by the melting of plastic onto the road. That is not a problem for four-wheel vehicles as they will not skid too far when they hit the white lines, but it is for motorcycles. I am sure that Mr Rugendyke would know that. Certainly, ex-sergeant Bill Mackie, who would be known to Mr Rugendyke and who used to teach police officers and other people how to ride motorcycles, drew it to my attention that, if you are surrounded by motor cars when you are coming into a rather major roundabout on a wet day and you hit a nice little piece of wet white plastic, you will be taking your life into your own hands, even if you are only doing 10 kilometres an hour round that roundabout. I question that. Mr Speaker, I have made my point about the non-urgent nature of this expenditure. I think that it is just farcical.

I turn my attention to the justice and community safety issue. The sum of $400,000 or thereabouts is being allocated to pay for an additional Comcare premium. That is in the nature of an urgent payment. It is actually for a significant payout to an officer at the Belconnen Remand Centre which, I am told by officers of the department, was atypical and, because the premiums are determined on our record, we have copped that extra $400,000 premium. Mr Speaker, a $400,000 jump in the premium is one significant payout; that is really a significant payout.

Let me put a warning on the record, Mr Speaker. If we look at the budget which will be coming up for debate this afternoon, we will see that the government is providing funds to augment the Belconnen Remand Centre by 15 cells. It is also providing $349,000 for additional staff there. That $349,000 is an increase of about $100,000 on the draft budget figure which was provided to us. When we had the committee hearings on the draft budget process, I asked the officers what the $250,000 was for and they told me that it was to bring the staffing level up from 45 to 51 for the number of cells which existed at the time.

That meant, therefore, that the $250,000 equated to roughly six staff. What we are seeing in the appropriation bill for debate this afternoon is an extra $100,000 being provided. It is not going to provide the funds for 15 staff, Mr Speaker. I am putting the government on notice here. It has a bad track record for compensation at the Belconnen Remand Centre because the staff there are under strength, overstressed and overworked. This government is not providing enough allowance for staffing in its budget to have the correct number of staff to service 66 cells and it is a stand-up start to receive an even bigger compensation claim than one which caused the $400,000 payout which is contained in Appropriation Bill (No 2).When this government goes to the incredible pain of paying out a significant compensation case, I intend to rise in this place and say, "I told you so. You should have provided more money in Appropriation Bill 2001-02."

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .