Page 2815 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is the first fee increase since 1998. A considerable period has passed since the last increase. It is therefore, I think, a necessary adjustment. There are, as Mrs Dunne alluded to, concessions available.
On the staffing issue, as discussed broadly in estimates, there is to be a transfer to the Shared Services Centre and some streamlining of IT provision. Obviously, the acceptable productivity offset found with the Australian Education Union in relation to the increase in average class sizes from 15.5 to 16 has enabled the government to be able to make the offer of a four per cent per annum pay increase for CIT staff.
I conclude on the point that in seeking to explore possibilities, and I think particularly of the lack of post-year 12 options in the Tuggeranong Valley, I have taken on board the comments that Dr Foskey makes in relation to Kambah high. I think there may be some possibilities there to explore. I certainly know that the Kambah board, the Kambah SRC and a variety of parents that I have spoken with already in the period since the budget have indicated some very strong support for that as something they would like to see the government pursue. As I have indicated before, it is very high on my agenda to ensure that we do address that issue of post-year 12 provision in the Tuggeranong Valley.
Proposed expenditure agreed to.
Proposed expenditure—Part 1.18—Exhibition Park Corporation, $321,000 (net cost of outputs) and $450,000 (capital injection), totalling $771,000—agreed to.
Proposed expenditure—Part 1.19—Legal Aid Commission (ACT), $3,385,000 (net cost of outputs), totalling $3,385,000—agreed to.
Proposed expenditure—Part 1.20—Public Trustee for the ACT, $613,000 (net cost of outputs), totalling $613,000—agreed to.
Proposed expenditure—Part 1.21—Actew Corporation, $9,444,000 (net cost of outputs), totalling $9,444,000.
MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (4.10 am): The $9.4 million appropriation for Actew Corporation in this year’s budget reflects a change to funding arrangements for the territory-owned corporation whereby the commonwealth specific purpose payment, which was previously listed as an ACT government user charge, has now been given an allocation in its own right. No matter how the figures are arranged, there remain significant concerns over the way Actew, in close association with the territory government, monopolises both the supply and price of water in the territory, much to the considerable financial benefit of this government but, I would suggest, to the financial detriment of the ACT water user.
The ACT government will collect $63 million in 2006-07 through dividends funded by the profits earned by Actew, helping to fund this government’s past overexpenditure and continuing deficit budgets. This revenue boosting source of dividend funding from Actew is, in fact, in many ways a thinly disguised tax collection, which means that Canberra households will have less discretionary income to spend. When you add this to the existing raft of levies, fees and charges that have been introduced in this budget, we then have a considerable overall increase in the cost of living for all Canberrans, an
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .