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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 5 Hansard (8 May) . . Page.. 1726 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

Where does this leave the ACT? For instance, will we receive any more insurance recovery moneys? Will we receive any more Commonwealth funds? Will we receive funds from any other sources?

In this confused environment, this Treasurer, this government, has proposed a fire tax to raise $10 million-and you have to ask why. We in the opposition have stated all along that there was not-and there still is not-a case to impose a bushfire tax. There is a short-term requirement for funds. We have sufficient cash funds to cope with that need, especially after the boost to revenues during the 2002-2003 year. Overall, while there is clearly a net cost at this point arising from the bushfire disaster, it does not appear that the ACT government has done all it can to obtain funds to cover it.

A number of questions arise. Has the ACT asked the Commonwealth for additional funding to pay for the repair and replacement of assets, in the context of the offer from the Prime Minister? Has the ACT asked the Commonwealth to pay the ACT for the excess amounts-totalling around $8 million-we have paid on our insurance policies? Have any other potential sources of funds been identified?

We are a small jurisdiction, and we have experienced a major and traumatic event. I believe it is entirely appropriate that we make approaches to others to assist us to recover from this bushfire disaster. We do not need a fire tax, what we need is a Treasurer. We need a Treasurer who will identify potential ways of obtaining support from other sources, to assist us to recover from the bushfires-not a Treasurer who appears to seek the easy way out by taxing those who, in many instances, have already borne a substantial cost from the bushfires.

Mr Speaker, I will now go through the portfolio areas in brief, and my colleagues will expand on them later in this debate. In the health portfolio, we see the main problem of the budget at work. It is simply not sustainable. The funding for the Canberra Hospital does not keep up with CPI and does not allow for population growth.

The government claims $18 million worth of new initiatives in health. Nearly half of this constitutes either redirected growth funds from last year's budget or attending to our obligations under intergovernmental agreements. The funding to address waiting lists is welcome, but it is less than two-thirds of what Calvary Hospital needs to make up for last year's cuts. The funding for increased throughput is also welcome, but I am concerned as to what the community will get for its money.

While I applaud the extra money for mental health, I cannot fathom why the number of raw in-patient separations is being reduced. This is the area of mental health that needs more, not less. We are talking here of intense clinical intervention. It cannot withstand a 6 per cent reduction. The shortfall will overwhelm the new community-based intervention. In health, I cannot find any reference to early intervention-the cornerstone of a sustainable health system.

In education, this bland budget is lacking in a vision of excellence. There are very few core education initiatives to show for the amount of new funding of $18 million. Again we see the government throwing money around, with few or no performance indicators

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