Page 3554 - Week 12 - Thursday, 19 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
which will bring about economies of effort and a diversion of resources, particularly from the courthouse, where police spend so much time in the forenoon. Regrettably, the initiatives will have to be taken on this side of the house because they are not being taken by the Government.
Mr Acting Speaker, on 10 July 1991 the Chief Minister announced that her Government was looking at including work-based child-care provisions in new initiatives. The Follett budget makes provision for $500,000 to be made available in 1991 to provide work-based child-care for staff in the ACT Government Service. We applaud this move. Although it is a drop in the ocean, it is clearly a beginning and builds on the arrangements we made in government at Woden and Calvary.
The new capital works proposals involve approximately $15m for the construction of infrastructure services, including access roads, and sewer and reticulation mains at Gungahlin. As I said earlier, the Follett Government cannot justify its impost on current ratepayers by not borrowing more than the approximately $5m scheduled to fund this portion of the municipal capital works budget.
On the subject of land development, the Government again is being inconsistent. Despite the rhetoric earlier in the year, the Government has, in effect, through this budget, affirmed the continuation of the balance between private and public development initiatives, particularly with joint venture activities. The capital works budget clearly indicates a continuation of the present arrangement; but we have received no clear endorsement directly from this Government, obviously so that they can keep their powder dry and their options open for the election. It is time the Follett Government gave a clear and emphatic endorsement of the joint venture building arrangements for our city.
On that point I indicate to the house that the arrangement itself should be reviewed. In the Rally's view, it is timely for the Government to open up scope for joint venture arrangements to a wider business community than the restricted arrangements with the institutional developers. On data available to the Rally, there is clearly scope to reduce turnout prices for blocks by allowing capable builder groups to contract directly with the Government. It has been put to the Rally that at least one developer group could turn out blocks $10,000 cheaper than the current arrangement. That may or may not be the case, but the Rally will push for a review of this closed shop joint venture policy. The prime consideration of the Government should be revenue which does not deny home seekers affordability and accessibility.
Mr Acting Speaker, the budget paper wisely sounds a warning in relation to the difficulty the Government is having in determining the Territory's massive accruing superannuation liabilities. This is as much a problem of research as it is of methodology. On the research side, the Government is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .