Page 4423 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 19 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Speaker, the social policy branch seems to have become a quite huge hydra-monster. Do we really need so many people? Do we need 14 Senior Executive Service members? I am certain that I could probably provide the same service to government with myself as head and two supporters or something. Do we need the 40-odd staff we have in that unit? It is a social policy advisory area. It is not, as the former Chief Minister and former Treasurer said, a branch to actually provide services to people as such. It is a social policy unit as such. It is not providing shopfront services and it certainly is quite correctly highlighted by this Estimates Committee report.
I think the Government has to look at ACTION buses. There are a couple of things I would suggest to the Government that it might like to look at - this Government and future governments - and the first is ACTION's charter. ACTION's charter, I understand, is somewhat restricted in terms of what ACTION can do. Perhaps if that charter were altered it might open up a few more activities in which ACTION could engage and which might make that service more cost-effective. ACTION is overfunded and loses about $64m a year. Surely further rationalisations can be made there. Maybe this Government should look at some work practices, although that is very difficult to expect from a socialist government. Perhaps a few reductions could be made there; perhaps there could be some rationalisation of bus routes. There is a lot of scope there. Can we afford that type of subsidy to a public transport system when we have so many economic difficulties?
Turning to housing, we are very well provided for here, despite problems with public housing, and we still have in public housing a number of people who can quite easily afford to pay full market rents. Maybe some of those houses - I understand that there are up to about 3,000 - could be sold off to those long-term tenants. Perhaps they would buy their own homes rather than continue to be subsidised as they are by public housing. That is one area where there was an increase in the budget - a substantial increase of some $5m. That is another area which could be looked at.
I note that there are a couple of houses in Bougainville Street, Manuka, whose value must be round about the three-quarters of a million dollars mark. What is happening with those? Should they remain public housing? Perhaps there is a very strong case, Mr Speaker, for rationalising that area of government and selling some of the perhaps excessive assets we have there.
Finally, Mr Speaker, I note with interest the comments made by my colleague Mr Collaery in relation to the Bruce Stadium. I would also commend to the Government some of the concerns expressed in relation to the Health Promotion Fund. It has been highly successful in the short period of its operation, but there are some concerns as to what the Government is going to do with that fund. That certainly would be very worrying if that goes through to fruition.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .