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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (3 May) . . Page.. 1445 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

In this budget, perhaps more than any other in the history of self-government, the government had the opportunity to do something special, to do something that would create a new benchmark, particularly in public education. Instead, it chose to put four times as much towards getting children to school as it does to educating them. Why? Because in its desperation at the mess it has made of things it thinks it can buy votes.

Mr Speaker, the government says it wants to be tough on crime and smart about crime. It wants to tackle the causes of crime, and that means tackling the drug problem. Patently obvious perhaps but commendable, and not before time. Canberra under this government, as we all know, has become the burglary and car theft capital of Australia. So much of that property crime has a direct relationship to drugs. So how does Mr Humphries propose to deal with this issue in the budget? There are more police, 10, to establish a patrol in Gungahlin. Commendable, but where does it place us against the national averages? Still way behind.

As the Productivity Commission showed in its latest report on government services, the territory has lagged behind the other states for years in regard to the number of police we have on hand per head of population. In 1993-94, when Labor was in office, we had 223 police officers per 100,000 population. The national average was 218. The Liberals took office in 1995. In 1996-97 we had fallen behind the national average: 208 per 100,000, compared to 217 nationally. By the most recent year reviewed, the situation had deteriorated further: 202 per 100,000, compared to the national average of 211. The government is just playing catch-up. While it has been playing catch-up, Canberra has become the burglary and car theft capital of Australia.

There is a package of around $2.5 million to combat the drug problem. Commendable of course, but look closer. Almost $2 million of that goes to provide a four-bed residential withdrawal service in conjunction with the Ted Noffs Foundation youth facility. This has been a glaring gap in service provision in Canberra for years, and it is most pleasing to see some action. But it does not leave much else to go around other essential programs. And this from a government that says it wants to get smart about crime.

I have already outlined previously Labor's broad approach to community safety. It is an approach that is much more comprehensive than any indication in this budget.

There are two major initiatives to support business in this budget-the capital works program and the payroll tax threshold. At first blush, both appear worthy. But, as Professor Brailsford pointed out yesterday, both are open to question. Canberrans, including the business sector, should not take them at face value.

The capital works program is the largest in the history of self-government. But there are no major works included, and last year capital expenditure in the ACT was the second lowest in Australian on a percentage basis. Most of the capital works expenditure is on roadworks and other essential community infrastructure, like schools, that the government has allowed to run down.

The fact that more than 40 per cent of the four-year allocation is to be spent in the first 12 months, drying up in the outyears, leaves a legacy for future budgets and future governments. While the quantum of capital works expenditure might be a hedge against

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