Page 2434 - Week 09 - Thursday, 17 September 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
initiatives in the health portfolio. But in areas such as disability services we have only vague statements to rely upon about what will be developed as a result of the new Commonwealth-State agreement in this area, and there is no high schools development program funding as such, outside of the pastoral care initiatives.
One of the biggest omissions from the budget papers is information about the Government's intentions as they relate to urban renewal processes. We have some hints, the major indication being that the Government has a fully-fledged strategy, albeit not public, with the statement that in 1993-94 there will be an increase in population in part due to urban renewal. We also have a projected 50 per cent contribution from urban renewal strategies of new housing sites in 1992-93. The adoption of urban renewal strategies by the Government appears to be happening without regard to the finalising of the draft Territory Plan and consideration, accepted by this Assembly last month, of a long-term strategic plan for Canberra.
Any move towards urban renewal also needs an analysis of the community infrastructure that is necessary to support anticipated population growth over the next three years and over this budget period. This includes identification of community infrastructure in terms of schools, health centres, public transport infrastructure, open space, identification of town centre needs, sport and recreation facilities, and a timetable for implementation. As part of this process, it is important that the ACT Government commence an assessment of the structural assets we possess - a task mentioned in the Chief Minister's budget strategy statement. However, there is very little follow-up information provided in the budget papers which will allow members and the general community to assess whether this task is being undertaken, except again in the context of urban renewal.
I commend the Government on its community consultation process in the lead-up to the budget and hope that this will continue in the future. Many of the initiatives in the budget appear to have come from the input of the peak groups and organisations consulted, namely, the Canberra Business Council, the Trades and Labour Council, and the ACT Council of Social Service. The ACT Council of Social Service, for example, called for the recognition of the greater needs of students with disabilities, and the budget response has been to expand the integration program in schools. The council has also called for an increase in the Jobskills program, as did the Youth Affairs Network of the ACT. Some other suggestions have been answered at least partially in the budget. For example, the call for personal development programs for high school students by the Women's Consultative Council and the improved student welfare and counselling call from the ACT Council of Parents and Citizens Associations are in part answered by increased pastoral care in high schools.
In broad and very general terms, it appears that the Government has taken community views on board and has attempted to meet some of these expectations. This has been no easy task. The Government has adhered to its pledge not to borrow for its recurrent funding needs, a decision that may become harder to adhere to in years to come. I have said that this is a goal worth striving for if we are not to overburden the community with debt in years to come. The Government has taken the opportunity to increase financial institutions duty, a move I feel is quite legitimate. As a community, I feel Canberrans are learning very quickly what the real costs of running the Territory are and accept that revenue needs to be found to soften the transition to self-government.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .