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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (3 May) . . Page.. 1448 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

The government had an opportunity in this budgetary context, as in no other, to do something significant, to mark a sea change. As ACTCOSS points out in its response to the budget, there was an opportunity in this budget to come to grips with poverty and disadvantage. In this budget cycle, like none before it, the government had the wherewithal to fund a meaningful and effective approach to poverty. It had the wherewithal, but it did not have the commitment and it did not have the vision. It had the chance to resurrect an aspiration held by many Canberrans, a vision of Canberra as a caring, supportive community. The government has given lip-service to the aspiration over the years but has not been prepared to put the words into action. It has chosen instead to bow to its chief priority-re-election-and in so doing has squandered another opportunity.

Mr Speaker, if there is one glaring example of how the government has followed Labor, it is in the centrepiece of the budget's response to the demands on the health portfolio. The government has decided to abolish the hospital cost-efficiency dividend, at a cost of $21 million over three years. This is a massive admission by the government that for years they have got it wrong. For years they have been blaming Canberra Hospital for its inefficiency compared with institutions in other jurisdictions. The reality, of course, is that the government-as Labor, the nurses and salaried officers have been saying unheard until this budget-has been comparing apples with oranges.

Labor has long understood that it is fundamental to get the basic assumptions correct in formulating budgets, whether they are hospital budgets or territory budgets. On this point, I understand that the minister has released a report just today, within the last hour or two. I am pleased to have the report and even more pleased that, I am advised, it vindicates almost absolutely the positions that I have taken on this. I should congratulate the staff at the hospital, the nurses and in particular salaried medical officers, especially Dr Gerard McLaren, on the work that they have done on this issue.

Mr Speaker, planning, environment and sustainability are the big losers in the budget. The government has made much about creating a more sustainable city. That mantra of Mr Smyth has been a key plank of the government's planning and environmental agenda. But there is just about zero in budget initiatives to support this aim. The largest spending item on sustainability is the refit of lighting in Macarthur House to save energy as part of greenhouse commitments. At face value, that is commendable. But what is it in reality except a project to upgrade the offices of the department that proposed the initiative?

As my colleague Simon Corbell drew your attention to yesterday, there is a significant cut to planning administration in this budget-$600,000 in total across all three branches of PALM. Yet PALM staffing is already at critically low levels. The agency is already unable to cope with its significant workload and the increasing planning tasks coming up over the next three years. The community will a loser as a result of this continued reduction in funding, through rushed or poorly prepared planning documents. Labor's very real concern is that it will also mean that the government will continue to outsource planning activity, effectively privatising it.

Mr Speaker, in the area of environment the only initiative is the funding for the joint management arrangements for Namadgi with the Ngunnawal people. The total increase for environment is 2 per cent, barely enough to keep pace with inflation. The government has ignored the pressing need for additional resources in nature conservation,

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