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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 8 Hansard (8 August) . . Page.. 2599 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

disturbing figures that were given to me by the association in terms of a two per cent reduction-a bit over $1 million-in the 1991-92 budget. That was very concerning, especially as it was coming out of operations. It effectively accounted for about 14 per cent of the operations budget. Sad to say, Mr Deputy Speaker-and I note that you were part of that government-the reductions continued, as Mrs Burke correctly said, until 1994-95 when some $51 million was spent. You correctly said at some stage in relation to another debate that money isn't everything, but it is important in terms of police on the beat and providing sufficient police to do the job properly. Sadly, that was not occurring.

I am delighted that the police budget has increased. I think it is terribly important that this area is properly funded. The number one duty of any government at the national level is to ensure that the country is adequately protected, and that means that it has an adequate defence force that is properly funded. At a state and territory level, one of the most fundamental tasks of any state and territory government is to ensure that its citizens feel secure from crime, and that means an adequately funded police force. I am delighted that we have been able to do that. I think now it is up to $67 million or $68 million. The current police minister, Mr Smyth, no doubt will be able to tell us exactly what it is, but there was a very substantial increase in the last budget.

Mr Deputy Speaker, we have been very lucky in the territory, probably since its inception, to have an extremely competent police force. The ACT Police, in their former guise, and the Australian Federal Police, since September 1979, have served the territory well. They continue to do so. Operation Anchorage, which Mr Hird referred to, was an outstanding success. There was a 24 per cent reduction in burglaries and 29 per cent in car theft. South Australia recently had a 3 per cent reduction in car theft, and they thought it was absolutely wonderful. I think these are outstanding results. The challenge now is to ensure that it continues.

We are served by an excellent police force, with intelligence-led policing. I think there were some 233 offenders in relation to the burglaries during Anchorage, and many of them were well known to police. Many of them were previous and repeat offenders. That leads to other great possibilities.

Early intervention is important. That is something that the opposition and Ms Tucker often talk about. It is something that we have done. Late last year the crime prevention fund, worth some $1.292 million, was launched. This is an initiative started a couple of budgets ago by the Chief Minister when he was in charge of policing. It is a very good and effective means of early intervention. There are a lot of other initiatives in a broad range of portfolio areas in this current budget which relate to early intervention, and that does get at the root causes of crime, although not completely; you are never going to completely get rid of crime. It is a long term plan. Early intervention does take time. It is something that we might see the benefits of 10, 15 or 20 years down the track. Nevertheless, it is very important.

Effective laws and effective sentences in the courts are very important. It is important that the courts and the judicial and legal system play their role too. It is pointless if at the end of the day people are not going to be punished adequately in the courts. It is pointless if the laws are inadequate to assist the police in doing their job to the best of their ability. Another plank in terms of what this government has done has been to improve the laws there.

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