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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Friday, 14 May 2004) . . Page.. 2040 ..

of sense when staff turnover has historically been an issue. I am glad that the new relief arrangements have improved staff retention and that the new arrangement includes staff training. I also support the improved staff allocation system, which improves the likelihood of relief workers being known to the group house residents that they are working with.

I also want to congratulate the government on making a substantial commitment to public housing in this appropriation bill. The fighting words of ACT Labor’s election platform led me to believe that the Stanhope government would, at minimum, restore public housing to the level it was at under the last Labor administration. The money in this appropriation bill is the first sign that the government is working on that promise. Canberra’s crisis accommodation is almost always full, and homeless people, for many of whom public housing is the only realistic option for long-term accommodation, are being turned away. Hopefully, this money will make a real difference in their lives.

Turning to the Department of Education, Youth and Family Services, I strongly support the extra $4.58 million for supporting children at risk that is included in the amendment to this bill. We have heard stories of reports not being fully investigated because of understaffing, and I hope this injection of funds prevents that occurring in the future. It would be gravely worrying if a child was left in an unsafe situation because there was no funding for substitute care.

I hope that government investigation will lead to a greater emphasis on programs that prevent abuse and fixing problems in families before it gets to the point where it is no longer safe for a child to remain at home. The goal of child protection services is family reunification, so it is vastly preferable if we can avoid separating families in the first place—without compromising the safety of children. It is a difficult line to tread—I understand that—and child protection workers have a difficult balancing act in that situation. We await more information from this government in relation to the Vardon inquiry and the changes made through the department of education, and even family services, to address these problems.

Lastly, I turn to the controversial issue of the Phillip Oval. This was raised through the appropriation bill and, reading the estimates report on the appropriation bill, I was incredibly interested in what the committee said. It is very rare for a committee to recommend that line items not be included in a final appropriation bill. I have looked into this issue in great depth and have considered it quite strongly, and the main issue for me was whether this money would be spent for the purpose for which it had been intended: whether it would actually go to ACTAFL for the lease of Phillip Oval.

A number of developers, and other bodies, are looking at Phillip Oval as an opportunity. Some people want to use it for sporting facilities to support the community; others have different ideas. I understand that ACTAFL was considering all of these options and was not initially happy with the government’s offer.

There is a lot of concern about the fact that this is a concessional lease, and it would be against the spirit of the concessional lease system if ACTAFL were to benefit from an asset on which it had made no initial outlay. In considering this matter, the review of concessional leases, which is being undertaken over such a long time, if it had been available, would have been incredibly useful in considering all the issues around

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