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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Friday, 14 May 2004) . . Page.. 1997 ..

paper 4 tells us that this decrease will “be directly passed onto CIT.” This is completely unacceptable. VET in the ACT will undoubtedly, over a period of time, hurt as a direct result of the decisions made by this government.

I am extremely disappointed that the government has not provided additional funds to Volunteering ACT in the 2004-05 budget. It is disappointing that the organisation has not received the $100,000 funding per annum that it richly deserves. VACT desperately need to not only plan for the future but also, unlike the government, ensure that they are readily mobilised in the event of another major situation in Canberra requiring volunteering assistance. Indeed, Mary Porter has said in a statement today that she has called upon governments and academia to devote urgent resources to measure the true effect on service delivery of this phenomena in order that we are able to address this emerging crisis before it is too late.

With regard to Commonwealth grants the government cannot and should not complain about a lack of Commonwealth support for the Department of Education, Youth and Family Services. The budget papers show a massive 16 per cent estimated increase in Commonwealth grants to the ACT in the 2004-05 year. As I have previously said, I welcome a number of electorate-based initiatives contained in the budget, including the child and family centres in both Gungahlin and Tuggeranong; the incorporation of the Junction Youth Health Service into Civic Youth Centre—I am waiting to see the detail on that, as I know Ms Tucker is—the allocation of funding to Weston Creek child-care centre; the Yarralumla Nursery zero run-off water recycling program; funding for works at Phillip and Dickson health centres; and ongoing funding for the indigenous family support service in North Canberra. They are very welcome indeed. Two very good areas that I am glad to see some money going into are the expansion of the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, to provide an outreach service to the Gungahlin area, and the funding for the Children at Risk Assessment Unit, after-hours, agency growth funds.

My colleague, Mr Cornwell, may allude to this more but, unfortunately, Deakin shops once again hit the jackpot—they missed out—and I am quite concerned. If we look at the projected rollout of urban shopping centre upgrades, we see it has slowed down somewhat. There are many forward plans and designs sitting there ready and waiting to go but again we see, sadly, that the bushfires are being cited as an excuse for the lack of funding and consequent progress of works.

In conclusion, there are good aspects to the budget, as I have said, but there are a large number of lost opportunities and a real lack of innovative policy development and forward focus. Poor ministerial leadership over the last three years has resulted in such examples as $78 million of smoothing-over money being allocated to two key portfolio areas. This really is bad management—it is unacceptable. This government had a real opportunity to better meet the needs of the community. I do not believe this budget has done that.

MR CORNWELL (5.33): As my colleagues have demonstrated, this 2004-05 Labor government budget is very much akin to last year’s budget in that it is characterised not only by more expenditure for lesser outcomes but again by talk but no action. This year’s budget is actually a budget of omission, in that many sections of the community have missed out on much-needed support and funding. Once again we see that the government

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