Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

(Extension of time granted) . . Page.. 1651 ..

We have heard that, for the first time, the forward estimates in this budget are not rubbery. But what if the housing market does not pick up enough to produce the estimated 6 per cent increase in stamp duty from property transactions? What if the predicted increase in revenue gained from the tax on cigarettes does not happen? What if people respond to the intention of the tax and start giving up smoking en masse? (Extension of time granted) It will not be until after the estimates process that we will have a clear indication of whether or not the increases in some areas will translate into increased service provision and where the cuts will really impact. Maybe after the estimates process we will also have a clearer idea of just how managers are supposed to meet their efficiency targets.

The purchaser-provider model is a key element in the Government's budget strategy of achieving efficiency objectives. As far as the Greens are concerned, it has not received the vigorous debate it deserves. To compensate for non-commercial obligations of a service - cheap bus fares for schoolchildren, for example - the Government will develop community service obligations in order to determine the amount of money that should be allocated to fulfil the social and environmental objectives. Like any model, it has pros and cons, and obviously the underlying objective is very important. At best, with community service obligations developed by the community, it may create greater transparency in government. At worst, it can be used Kennett-style as a cost-cutting exercise or as a precursor to wholesale privatisation. To reflect social needs and environmental objectives, the identification, methods of provision and funding of CSOs need to be determined through a process of extensive consultation with community, consumer, and environmental groups, as well as with service providers.

I would now like to talk briefly about some of the key areas in this budget, starting with health. There has been a lot of hype in recent weeks about the Booz Allen and Hamilton report and operational efficiency in the health system. The Greens are concerned that some elements of the report that have been incorporated in the budget may undermine the integrity of enterprise bargaining agreements. The Greens believe that there should be much more emphasis on the critical end of health care - primary health. Yet in this budget there appears to be very little change in focus from a hospital-based curative system to a community-based preventative system. While the Greens support a clinical school in the long term, we believe that at this stage more of our health dollars should be spent outside of Woden Valley Hospital. They should be spent in the community. But community health centres have been targeted for savings. For example, Kippax and Melba health centres are being privatised, which it appears will result in a significant loss of service, while other on-the-ground services such as counselling and refuges have also taken a cut. We welcome a commitment to increased funding in areas where there has been a real need in the ACT for some time, such as discharge planning and respite care.

In education, Mrs Carnell appears to have pulled a big swiftie. Not only is she commercialising Birrigai, but the promise that there would be no real reductions in expenditure has not been realised. As in many other areas, central office support staff will go and school maintenance will be cut. We are also not totally reassured that there has not been a downgrading of resources allocated to Aboriginal concerns in education. The commercialisation of Birrigai is symbolic of the whole approach of this budget.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .