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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Friday, 14 May 2004) . . Page.. 2043 ..

Children and Young People Act and the consequent increased figure for days of substitute care used annually. Clearly, the increase in need has come as a surprise and, consequently, had to be funded through this third appropriation.

The story is interestingly illustrated by comparing figures in last year’s budget with those in this bill. The estimated outcome for 2003 was $82,743, which is exactly the same as the 2002-03 target and exactly the same as the 2003-04 target—a remarkably precise and unchanging figure. When we look at the government’s limit to this bill, we see that the actual audited outcome for 2002-03 was $95,293 and the revised target for 2003-04 is now $113,265. The point is that the figures for demand for services were clearly rising quite fast well before the 2003-04 budget was handed down. It raises real questions about the focus the department had on this aspect of its work, when the projections for the upcoming year and the final budget figures were assembled.

The other figure of alarm is the appraisal rate of all reports of suspected abuse. The target percentage was 90 per cent; yet the audit outcome was 62 per cent. That is a cause for concern—although, given the evidence of this year, no surprise. When we see the Vardon report and the government formulates its response, I trust that it won’t just be about more money going into the department but will include an analysis of the department’s performance and an intelligent view of how best to resource and work with these kids both through government agencies and the community services.

Finally, I would like to make a few comments on the appropriation for housing. I was pleased to see the announcement of $33.2 million late last year, and I look forward to seeing more details about what exactly the money will be spent on. There are a couple of comments from the committee report that are worth noting. Shelter expressed concern about the use of $3.4 million on an Aboriginal hostel—not because this is not needed but because it may not be a long-term housing solution for the indigenous community and the initiative needs to be negotiated with the appropriate indigenous bodies.

There was also mention of the government’s desire to spot-purchase housing with the money from the appropriation bill. This is concerning, as purchasing properties in a competitive housing market might contribute to driving up the prices in an already tight housing market. I am pleased to see that the committee has recommended that the government improve the procurement processes of ACT Housing. I am concerned that in a competitive market the government will show a preference for purchasing properties in the outlying parts of Canberra while the number of houses in the inner areas of Canberra, where the housing market is most competitive, will gradually decrease.

I am disappointed that the government has announced the injection of housing money about three times now. We understood, after the first announcement, that the government would spend accumulated funds in the form of home loans in the portfolio. It does seem rather cheeky that the government continues to announce this money as a new initiative. The key issue is the number of public housing tenancies and properties, and it is disappointing to see that no real increase in the number of properties in the upcoming year is expected, despite this increase in funding.

MRS BURKE (9.50): One or two concerns with this bill have already been addressed in depth by other members tonight and the select committee. However, I would like to add some minor points to what has already been said. Some parts of this bill have been

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