Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (29 June) . . Page.. 2347 ..
MS TUCKER (11:01): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Why don't you congratulate me for speaking on nearly everything? That would be better. I only sat up there for one minute.
Mr Moore: What are you talking about? We want to go home.
MS TUCKER: I want the Cherry Ripe. We are staying until two o'clock. I will speak briefly on this area. The general comments I have made on governance apply to this section of the budget as well, but I will not go through all that again. I will just pick out a few elements of this aspect of the budget which demonstrate the broader concerns I have expressed.
I do not believe that in JACS we have seen a preventative approach across the board. The government has made large additional funds available to the portfolio. Could it be because the susceptible balance of power had interests in a part of this portfolio, namely, policing? Police numbers are a part of community safety but they are not the whole story.
The other area of responsibility in this portfolio is oversight of several sources of funding for legal community services. In all of these areas the minister should be considering justice principles and the meaning of community safety. What is justice? Could justice be related to compensation to all victims of crime? Could it be related to revenue being sourced with an emphasis on equity? Could it be related to ensuring that all people in our community have access to the legal information and support they need before they end up in dire straits or in courts? You would think, based on the social capital comments made by this government, that something along these lines would apply to the budget. The Chief Minister said in a media release in May of this year:
... we need to do more to make our community stronger. There are no easy solutions to community issues like alienation, disadvantage, poverty and exclusion. These issues must be addressed if we are to remain a caring community.
The Treasurer said:
Our approach is to provide early intervention services, so that the community isn't left to pick up the pieces. Addressing social problems before they cause family breakdowns, school drop-outs or anti-social behaviour is at the core of our Canberra: Building Social Capital initiatives.
But the case of Care seeking to find funding for its consumer credit and legal service shows us the reality of the government's lack of commitment, even to its version of social capital. Of course, the government has no problem in finding $17 million for the car race or $8 million for the airline or airport, whichever it is, or seemingly endless amounts of money for football stadiums and other businesses. But when it comes to victims of crime, the concerns of the Treasurer certainly outweigh the concerns of the Attorney-General.
The victims of crime scheme is discriminatory and unfair. It excludes most victims of crime from entitlements that a few enjoy. It is very clear that this scheme is in place because the government is not prepared to carry the cost of an equitable approach, and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .