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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Friday, 14 May 2004) . . Page.. 1991 ..

We are so concerned with the state of policing and the capacities of our community police teams that we must implore the government to urgently allocate new funding in this budget to reduce the pressures on our policemen and policewomen. It is simply unacceptable that this government will not recognise and take action to remedy the many pressures across ACT policing—pressures not just in numbers but also in the rectification of systemic operational and administrative weaknesses in the systems that underpin ACT policing.

The government has a major retention problem with its police. It is losing experienced police and fielding understrength and overstretched police teams. Our policemen and policewomen are very important and this government is badly letting them down and, consequently, failing the community. This budget very poorly attends to these issues.

Further, I note that funding has been allocated to addressing the ACT’s domestic level counter-terrorist plan. This is welcome, given the national and community threat levels that now exist. However, I am concerned that, at a cost of about $1 million over four years, this critical priority seems to be underfunded. I look forward to a detailed explanation of where this funding is going. Further, though, and of major concern, I see little funding allocated to enhancing ACT policing’s role in our domestic counter-terrorist plan. A small amount of money has been made available for chemical, biological and radiological counter-measures equipment, which is welcome. Not only is community policing underfunded in this budget; the most frightening challenge—terrorism—may well be neglected. I look forward to being proven wrong in the hearings. I hope that is the case, because this is a major issue that this community needs to come to grips with.

I now turn to the education budget. BP 2 lists a five per cent increase in funding for 2004-05, resulting in 910 fewer education places for students than last year but with an increase of two schools. Therefore, $16.4 million is being put into education with 910 fewer education places for Canberra students. The Minister for Education, Youth and Family Services must be so proud of the information in BP 4—the increase of $32.476 million in funding in 2004-05 from the 2003-04 estimated outcome, being partly offset by declining student enrolments in government schools, effectively amounting to $2.263 million. Instead of the minister trying to fund initiatives to attract and retain students in ACT government schools, she has accepted the loss. Perhaps she has thought, “Oh well, we can just blow the money on something else.” That is not very responsible.

BP 4 also reveals that there is a 4.1 per cent increase in spending per government preschool student. Does this sound good? It may, until you look a little closer at the detail. There are no increases in services, quality or effectiveness for government preschool students and only one additional education place has been offered. Again, the minister for education must be so proud of what she is bringing to the students and parents of Canberra—one additional government preschool place, overall 910 fewer education places and more money being spent because of the declining enrolments in the government school sector, but where is the productivity? No wonder there are declining enrolments in the government school sector!

The minister is not addressing the problem. She does not care about the impact it has on public education and prefers to spend the money on things other than attraction and

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