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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 3794 ..

MS REILLY (continuing):

list for housing is not being reduced through these sales. We have to wait for the construction to happen before people can move into these new units that will be constructed. One is glad to see at least that reinvestment will happen and that the number of jobs in the construction industry will not be reduced, which may have happened with the taking out of the $10.4m.

I was pleased to hear the Minister tell me during question time that the maintenance budget has actually increased this year. This will come as a great surprise to a number of public housing tenants who were told, in fact, that there was no money for maintenance this year because they had to have a reduced housing budget. I am quite sure that many of them are going to be very pleased to find out that, in fact, there is a more than full maintenance budget this year. Maybe the requests for maintenance can now be fulfilled, because for many tenants accessing maintenance is extremely hard. There does not seem to be any response at times from ACT Housing. I think it is also sad that the issue of the redevelopment of Ainslie has been tied entirely to having enough money to do refurbishments, to having enough money for ACT Housing to continue. So, the loss of the $10.4m has to be replaced by redeveloping Ainslie, without any proper consultation with the community about some of the requirements they may have for Ainslie.

One of the difficulties with the budget, as I have said, has been the difficulty of scrutinising what will happen. There is very little detail. One of the items that failed to be detailed was the electric fence to go around the Quamby youth remand centre. It is very unfortunate that this fence is going up, because it illustrates further the crisis management of a situation. It is a further knee-jerk reaction to something that is happening. I do not deny that the detainees in that centre are escaping; but there is no behaviour management, according to the answers to the Estimates Committee's questions. It is responding on a day-to-day basis. It is responding after the detainees have escaped. Instead of looking at it as a long-term process, it is just responding to a situation on a particular day at a particular time. This is just another example of crisis management within the ACT Government at this time.

We can look at the family services budget as well. It is very pleasing to see the increase in foster care places that were announced in this budget. But that also came as a result of a crisis just at the time the budget was being developed. I think this illustrates quite well the way in which this budget was put together: There is a crisis; so you find a quick response to answer that crisis. You do not get the feeling of any long-term management, of looking at long-term outcomes. It is crisis management and hoping that you can fit the lid on the mess.

MS McRAE (9.05), in reply: Will I be closing the debate, Mr Speaker?

MR SPEAKER: Yes.

Mr Stefaniak: We are reserving our reply for later.

MS McRAE: I should hope so.

MR SPEAKER: Proceed.

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