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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Friday, 14 May 2004) . . Page.. 1990 ..

I will briefly mention the economy. Clearly the last year or more have been good for money coming into the government, linked closely to the housing boom. This is clearly good for the government coffers but not necessarily for everyone in Canberra. Arguably, this has been extremely bad for housing affordability. That is why investment in infrastructure, such as public housing and light rail, is important at a time when the government has money and there is a wider need for equitable investment.

MR PRATT (4.58): I rise today to reply to the government’s 2004-05 budget and, in particular, to speak about areas relating to my shadow portfolios and my electorate of Brindabella. While on the surface the budget may seem sound, it lacks imagination and creativity. It is purely an election budget. Additionally, the funding is scattergun across the portfolios and not tightly targeted to those programs where the greater productivity and ‘bang for the buck’ could be achieved.

There are areas in the budget that have large gaps—areas that are important to the Liberal opposition and the Canberra community. Importantly, in my area of concern there are few obvious productivity gains for the areas where funding is allocated. For example, BP 2 states that there is a $4.5 million increase in funding for 2004-05, equalling a 4.98 per cent increase in funding from last year. However, there is a 5.75 per cent decrease in services through a reduction in police personnel. The 2002-03 ACT Policing Annual Report lists 817 police personnel, both sworn and unsworn. The 2004-05 ACT budget states that over 770 police personnel will be funded, 47 personnel fewer than in the 2002-03 ACT Policing Annual Report. Are the 10 additional police officer positions for 2004-05 and the 10 additional positions for 2005-06 sworn or unsworn positions? When we find that out, it may even add another complexion to the issue of police capability.

Community policing is a high priority not only for the Liberal opposition but also for the community. The 2004-05 budget submission of the Australian Federal Police Association states that the ACT needs an estimated additional 121 sworn police officers to bring the ACT in line with at least the national average of sworn police officers per 100,000 head of population.

At 5.00 pm, in accordance with standing order 34, the debate was interrupted. The motion for the adjournment of the Assembly having been put and negatived, the debate was resumed.

MR PRATT: Mr Speaker, surely you would remember your own party’s election promise back in 2001 that stated that the Labor Party would increase sworn police personnel from 181 per 100,000 head of population to the national average which, according to the AFPA, currently stands at 218 per 100,000 head of population—an increase of 37; a gap of 37.

The Stanhope government just keeps on breaking its promises. It made a classic promise in the 2001 election to do this, yet it has not been done. The government continues to break its promises. The sworn police personnel issue, coupled with the ever delayed Woden police station saga—we will not hold our breath for the completion of the project listed in the budget as June 2005—continues to show the Stanhope government as inactive in community safety, inactive in law and order and inactive in promise keeping.

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