Page 739 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 29 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
stage in any budget process there are always those within the community who, quite understandably, begin to feel some concern at the prospect of changes the government might make in relation to government structures, service delivery models and budget allocations. That is part and parcel of the annual cycle of government and policy delivery and development so it is quite understandable that there are constituent and representative groups within the community who, as budgets approach, make representations. Of course, as part of the open and transparent processes around government and budget making, we welcome submissions and actively consult with the community on their expectations, hopes and aspirations in relation to a budget.
In this instance Mr Stefaniak is responding to some concerns expressed in writing—obviously to himself and to the government—and aired publicly around the implications of the upcoming budget for sport and recreation. The budget will be informed by a functional strategic review I have commissioned to give advice to the government on the arrangements best suited to meet the priorities of government and the community across the board, including those in relation to sport. That is the current environment. This is the time of year when we are approaching a budget, and cabinet has begun detailed consideration around the budget. I am awaiting, as part of the cabinet process, a detailed report which will have the title “functional and strategic review”.
Although no decisions have yet been made on sport and recreation funding, for the purposes of this debate it is to be noted that in the last Liberal budget in 2001 appropriations for sport and recreation totalled $5,206,000 and the 2005-06 budget appropriations for sport and recreation totalled $9,717,000. In the context of the present debate, those figures must be borne in mind. The budget appropriation for sport and recreation, excluding sportsgrounds, in 2001-02 was $5,206,000, and in 2005-06 that budget appropriation was $9,717,000. Just bear those figures in mind in any discussion on this issue.
From those budget figures and allocations I am sure the organisations and those making representations on this matter to each of us would also have in mind the significant increase in funding to sport and recreation over the past five years. That move is appropriate and something the government is quite proud of. I will go into the detail of some of the initiatives that have been pursued in recent years and some of the significant budget funding provided annually through grants schemes. There are enormous lists of the support this government willingly gives to enhance sport and recreation activities within the community. Specific grants have been made for the upgrade and management of Manuka Oval. Payments of over $1 million are made annually to the Brumbies through performance agreements. Performance payments of over $8 million a year are made to the Raiders as a result of performance agreements with them. There are payments of $250,000 a year to the AFL Kangaroos under the performance agreement entered into with this government.
Kids at play, launched by this government in 2004 at a cost of $285,000 a year, is an incredibly successful program designed to encourage children to participate in physical activity. We have allocated funds of $382,000 over four years to the actively ageing program initiated by this government. The Good Sports Territory, launched in July 2004 by this government, provides $95,000 to address inappropriate behaviours in sport. Women’s sports grants of over $100,000 a year were initiated by this government. Then
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .