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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 985 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, this committee responded to the terms of reference in the best possible way, as best we could. We have drawn attention to the priorities expressed to us, and I would not claim for a minute that they cover every priority. I think we had more submissions than any other committee, but I would not say that every aspect of that area was covered in the approach to us. I know there are some areas that were not able to respond to us. They are too busy on the ground doing the work. We accepted the terms of reference and we did not change that bottom line. We would like to do that. I know that members would wish to do that as we assess the priorities, but we did not.

At this point let me express a concern of the committee. I want to read in full paragraph 3.6 of our report, which appears on page 17:

This committee has kept its recommendations and comments well within the restricted terms of reference laid down by the Assembly. While the committee is not aware of the recommendations of other committees, this committee would be most disturbed if the Government agreed to recommendations made by other committees that went beyond these terms. In particular, the committee would find it extremely problematic if the Government responded positively to particular committee recommendations that urged specific portfolio expenditure increases in dollar amounts that did not maintain or improve the operating result as identified in the draft budget papers.

We did what we were told by this Assembly, but I picked up clues today indicating that that has not been universal, and Mr Humphries now seems to be preparing the ground to say, "Well, that's all right; I've done a deal with another committee. I have done a deal and I can find a way that you can increase the bottom line". Mr Humphries is preparing the ground to announce that he has scuttled his own process. I would be very concerned about that because, as the committee says, there is no higher priority than some of these areas in community care in particular.

Now, there will be changes. Simply because of the Grants Commission process, and perhaps even as the GST is factored into the budget, there will be changes. If those changes emerge, we will express the urgency of those areas. We have highlighted that in our report. A very large part of our report deals with just that. Look at mental health; look at outreach services for women; look for assistance to volunteers. There are strong claims for a mental health peak body. There are further needs for advocacy services. I mention for example the urgent case of one constituent who was assessed by all processes for her child to get more services, but they did not come. Well, money is tight. Money needs to be provided.

We hear of pressures on training because of the pressures on community bodies. The need of the Alzheimers Association has been well expressed throughout the community, as have the needs of autistic children and the needs for counselling. All these areas can overwhelmingly demonstrate their priority for funds. If there are more funds to come, I would strongly urge that members pay attention to the committee report which says, "We know the areas. You attend to those areas, because that is where the needs are".

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