Page 1119 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 3 May 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
rein in the future $190 million deficit that is being talked about. Chief Minister, how do you plan to balance the obvious need for additional police officers in the ACT with the obvious need for budget cuts to services? Or will you take this opportunity to simply criticise the AFP commissioner, as you did earlier this year after Mr Keelty made his submission to the committee on the ACT’s draft terrorism bill?
MR STANHOPE: I thank Mr Pratt for the question. The member has raised an issue in relation to police numbers and I think it is appropriate for me to respond in the way I did earlier to the Leader of the Opposition around ruling in or ruling out or speculating about the process the cabinet is utilising in relation to issues that it faces. More particularly, I will take the opportunity in relation to the appearance of Commissioner Keelty on ABC radio this morning to reiterate the position which the minister for police has put in relation to the appropriate way in which public officials should bring their views around operational and management issues to government and, most particularly, to the respective minister. I endorse the comments that my colleague, the minister for police, made in relation to that earlier in question time today.
In the context of the point that you made around my relationship with Commissioner Keelty, I regard Commissioner Keelty as a most significant and fine Australian, and a police commission of whom the nation can be proud. I have always held him in enormous regard and continue to do so. In the context of the anti-terrorism debate, the fact remains that Commissioner Keelty was invited by a committee of this place to make a submission and to attend to present evidence, which he did. He made and drew conclusions and expressed opinions with which I disagree.
I was invited by that same committee to appear, to express opinions and to give evidence. I was asked about opinions expressed by Commissioner Keelty on legislation which I had introduced and on which I was called to give evidence. I disagreed. I disagreed then and I disagree now with the evidence that Commissioner Keelty gave. He has a point of view, which he expressed. I have a point of view, which I expressed. To beat this up and to confect this as anything other than the honest expression of an opinion is to overstate the case and to seek to find conflict or seek to suggest that there is in my responses in relation to evidence presented by Commissioner Keelty something of a desire to be personal or in any way undermine or demean Commission Keelty in the honest expression by him of his opinions.
Shock, horror! Two witnesses called to give evidence before a parliamentary committee have a difference of opinion. He suggested that the approach my government had taken through legislation introduced by me would have a certain consequence—in other words, that it would expose this community to greater danger. That was the nature of Commission Keelty’s evidence. My response was quite simple. I simply responded that that suggestion was in my opinion preposterous. That is an honest expression of my opinion. And that is all that I said—that I believed it preposterous to suggest that that is what my actions would result in. I maintain that position just as I maintain a level of the most enormous respect for Commissioner Keelty and the way in which he, as the chief police officer of Australia, carries out his duties.
MR PRATT: Mr Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. Chief Minister, are you going to increase the number of ACT police officers by the net gain of 100 that Commissioner Keelty has in fact recommended?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .