Page 2774 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
is demonisation, and you know it. Who is going to stand up and defend prisoners? Who is going to stand up and defend those that put themselves outside the boundaries of society? Not you. Mr Stefaniak says, “There is not much support in the community for a prison.” There never is support in the community for prisoners or prisons—never—but it is a fundamental responsibility of a civilised society. There are decisions that need to be taken, and these are policies that need to be implemented.
You completely misunderstand. It is nothing but an appalling stunt being pursued by you for political purposes and political advantage at the expense of one of the most marginalised groups of people within our community. It completely misunderstands the budget and our cash position. To suggest that we need to—shock-horror—stop work on the prison, despite the fact that we have already spent $10 million on it, on the basis of our cash position, is absolutely ludicrous, and you display your ignorance.
MR PRATT (Brindabella) (1.17 am): The allocation of $128.7 million in budget paper 4, page 248, is an unnecessary impost and a waste of good capital and recurrent expenditure on the jail project, the prison project. Mr Stefaniak has addressed this issue in detail, so I will only say one thing: regardless of what you will say about the differential between this project and that which must be spent on the remand centre, it is very questionable that you will break even, on the numbers that you are talking about.
There will be money saved if the prison project does not go ahead. For God’s sake, we have got a five-year road plan of capital expenditure that has been neglected and that could very well do with $30 million, $40 million or $50 million more, Mr Stanhope. Mr Stefaniak’s amendment will save the territory a significant amount of money that could be better channelled into those essential services that we believe this government has neglected.
Mr Stanhope’s comments about how members on this side want to belittle and attack prisoners are entirely disingenuous. That was a disgusting attack. That is not the position of the opposition. It is rich coming from a Chief Minister who does not give a toss about protecting rights and about his first duty-of-care responsibilities for the broader ACT community. It is a chip-on-the-shoulder attitude by a 1950s, lockstep, socialist defender of the underdog. What a lot of rubbish! What a load of rubbish!
Let us get onto forensics, if I may, Simon. The DPP has said that the capacity that he has is reasonable but indicated that more resources would be handy. While the DPP does not seem overly concerned, magistrates have continually complained that court cases are slow due to a lack of forensics. As well as civilian forensic services, the police need their own dedicated forensic capability. Otherwise, they are subject to national priorities, which take away from their priorities.
Mr Corbell: I will let the DPP know.
MR PRATT: Keep on burbling, Simon. Nobody is listening. This government claim to provide an intelligence-based police service, yet they do not ensure that the police have enough resources to collect that intelligence. Without a uniform forensic capability, that is impacted upon.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .