Page 1319 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 3 April 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This government, aided and abetted by Minister Rattenbury, is like the worst kind of boss Imagine if you came into this place and said, “We don’t need more nurses because we’ve given them better blood pressure machines.” Can you imagine it? What an embarrassment. I hope the minister goes home and has trouble sleeping, because I know the staff of ACT Policing who are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder do not sleep. They do not sleep because their workload is too much.
What an absolute embarrassment of an amendment the government has put up. We have an unjustifiably low number of police. That is not to say there are no other programs that need to be run in society, but we have an unjustifiably low number of police compared to anywhere else in Australia. This is after 18 years of Labor government, so it is nobody else’s fault. The minister stood with a straight face while moving to change my motion about police numbers to completely omit the whole point of this motion—police numbers.
The government’s response to the fact that we have 75 fewer police officers today than we had at the start of the decade, while the population is 50,000 stronger, is: “We’re fine because we’ve given the police smartphones, a slightly better upgrade of the Tuggeranong and Winchester stations, four new specialist positions in crime trends targeting and two specialist officers to combat organised crime.” God help the minister if he ever needs help, because it is so difficult for these people to do their jobs now.
This government’s response over the long term to all of its front-line workers who put on a uniform for the government and go out there every day and do their difficult jobs is, “Suck it up, sweetheart. Put up with it. That’s all you’re getting and that’s adequate and that’s fine by me.” Why on earth did the minister get himself elected in the first place? He talks about social justice, but it is not particularly socially just to expect people to do more than a full-time load. It is not particularly socially just to expect our men and women in the police force to carry this huge load.
What a disgrace that the minister says he will continue working with ACT Policing. Of course he will continue working with ACT Policing; he has not got any choice—he is the minister for police. I note that he is smirking away at his computer while we are talking about the huge load on the backs of our men and women in blue. What an absolute disgrace. In his whole speech there was not a single mention of the front-line officer numbers; not a single mention of the fatigue and the overtime. It was a very weak response and a very, very weak amendment.
Which part of the motion does the minister consider to be incorrect: that the number of officers has reduced, that his government cut $15 million out in 2013-14 or that the ROGS data shows we have the lowest policing per capita in the nation? Which part of that do we need to delete? Why do we need to delete that in an amendment? Those are simple, plain facts, and the minister knows it.
The ACT has 205 officers per 100,000 people. Even New South Wales has 237 per 100,000. We are miles behind on police recruitment. Minister Rattenbury claims the AFPA does not speak for all the police. Well, I challenge him: find me one police
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video