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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 5 Hansard (8 May) . . Page.. 1727 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

to demonstrate to the community how programs have performed to date, or how they will be measured in the future.

While we are critical that there are too few initiatives for the amount of money that has been spent, we are pleased to see funding to provide significantly more support for disruptive children at risk-although we are wary whether this will be spent in a meaningful fashion. There is funding for class reduction programs in non-government schools, assistance to pre-schools for cleaning and insurance, and no apparent slash and burn of the non-government schools sector. Well done, Minister.

Mr Speaker, the government has spent nearly $500,000 on reports and reviews-Connors et cetera-to tell them how to spend $7 million. A paltry $460,000 has been allocated to evaluate school performance and achievement-the things parents are interested in. I take this opportunity to voice the opposition's concern that not all of the $7.4 million has been promptly allocated inside the school gate as promised, and we continue to investigate.

An education budget that does not invest in the artistic, creative and sporting potential of our youth is an education budget that misses a vital opportunity to play its part in creating a sustainable future for Canberra.

I think it is fair to say there are some useful initiatives within the justice and community safety portfolio, such as the mediation of property disputes before the AAT, which will save much time, money and heartache. The budget provides, however, $200,000 a year, rising to $204,000, then $208,000 and $212,000 in the out years for human rights legislation. I am not sure when drafting legislation became an initiative but my colleague, Mr Stefaniak, has a number of serious concerns with this part of the budget which he will expand upon later.

Another disappointing factor in the AG's area is that crime prevention programs have dropped from 14 programs down to 10. Meanwhile, as is now common with this government, the cost of these programs goes up.

The opposition applauds the government's commitment to a new communications system for our emergency services. I am personally heartened to see more funding for community involvement with bushfire fighting.

Turning to business and tourism, Mr Speaker, this budget is a disappointing one for the business sector, and for economic development generally. It is further evidence that the government has no real understanding of, or commitment to, the business sector in Canberra. The consistent lack of an economic development strategy is obvious with the hopelessly overdue white paper.

So far, all the government has delivered is a discussion paper which the minister himself labelled a statement of the bleeding obvious. There is nothing new in this year's budget to help the troubled tourism and timber industries. CTEC has its funding reduced by 9 per cent next financial year and by almost a quarter in the year following-and the government has delivered no payroll tax relief in this budget.

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