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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Friday, 14 May 2004) . . Page.. 1986 ..

participation and planning now that the LAPACs have folded and the community planning forums have been abandoned. The interactive neighbourhood planning component of the planning process also appears to have fallen completely by the wayside.

I think we are all aware in this Assembly that community concern is at its most intense when it comes to local planning. It is not a good reflection on where we have got to in this term if these key components have been silently abandoned. Furthermore, we were all aware that some community groups were cautious, in the days of the previous government, that comments they made or positions they took would impact on further funding. There have been similar feelings emerging now among a range of community organisations in regard to their future funding and I find that very concerning. Reform of the disability sector appears to have tied services into a funding cycle and structure which makes them particularly vulnerable to reward and punishment.

I would like to look in more detail at particular sectors. I acknowledge that the government seems to have really supported the indigenous peoples of the territory and I commend it for that. On the youth sector, the Youth Coalition presented a comprehensive response to the budget. I am sure people are aware of it and the government has it, so I will only briefly summarise the main concerns. As I have said already, they comment on the lack of funding for a children’s commissioner. I will add to that my concern, as I have already mentioned, about the oversight bodies’ complaints mechanisms.

On a specific note, I was disappointed to see that there was no direct funding for programs such as the JPET Multicultural Youth Service which is facing cuts from the federal government and trying to address unmet need, particularly from ‘at risk’ refugee and migrant young people, 18 to 24 years of age. Also, housing is still an issue for the youth sector, particularly for at risk young people. The proposed night shelter and the youth boarding houses are yet to see the light of day. One of the general concerns that has come up, which I will comment on, is that there are really good initiatives in education for health promotion in high schools, I think, particularly—maybe it was in colleges. There are definitely some good initiatives in the education area, but they need to be mirrored in the youth services, which deal with young people who are not in the school system. That is really important because these people are extremely vulnerable. This budget has neglected that particular group of young people.

For housing more generally, I can only make the same points that I will make when we discuss the third appropriation bill. While I was pleased to see the announcement of $33 million late last year, it is still not entirely clear what it will be spent on. Certainly it does not appear to be going towards making all public housing more environmentally and energy efficient, and so cheaper to live in for tenants, nor is it going to be spent on increasing the number of properties for ACT Housing to manage.

While there are good things about the homelessness strategy that this budget supports—I commend the agencies and the government for putting it together—the underlying issue will remain one of stock. Homelessness will remain a problem when there is neither sufficient emergency housing nor long-term public housing available. The supposed $5 million initiative does not quite cover the loss of the $5.9 million of GST compensation through the CSHA. I understand that the government’s response to the concern expressed by community was, “The compensation for that loss of the

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