Page 400 - Week 01 - Thursday, 11 December 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR SESELJA: The Treasurer could not quite bring herself to say “P&F” today. She just mentioned the P&Cs. But this will be going to both groups. Clearly, this is not urgent. I do not think it could be said that it is urgent that we get this out before Christmas. This money will be well received whenever it goes through.
The $100,000 grant to the RSPCA was, we believe, as a result of an urgent call saying that this charity was facing imminent collapse, and we accept the urgency of this. I suppose with these things we are often responding to disasters. If the dialogue is there, perhaps these things can be handled quicker. But we have no problem with that at all.
Obviously, there is the first home owners boost scheme, and this is putting in place some of the Rudd government’s announcements. But we do not see—and I believe this is the case; I am happy to be corrected—the money for urgent relief for people in mortgage stress that was announced during the election campaign. We do find that a little bit odd. My recollection of the various press statements of the Chief Minister at the time was that this was when the need for a second appropriation actually hit him, when it was pointed out to him by a journalist that this relief would not be delivered until 1 July next year. So we are very surprised to see that that is not in there. That would be one of the things that should be in there. Perhaps the Treasurer, when she closes the in-principle debate, can point out to us why that relief, which was considered urgent during the election campaign, is not going to be delivered until July next year.
We see $500,000 in business and industrial relations support as a result of previous cuts, and $500,000 for tourism advertising. Of course, we have seen significant cuts in tourism funding in the last few years. There is sports support to replace cuts in the horror budget of 2006. Of course, many of these are catch-up items.
It is worth looking at the environment portfolio—$9.7 million over four years for a new department. Of course, we are on the record as supporting action on climate change. We support practical measures in relation to this. It does need to be said that $9.7 million for a new department is fine, but because we have not had the opportunity to properly scrutinise it, it is very difficult for us to know how this money will exactly be spent. There is not enough detail. This is the sort of thing on which we should be able to ask some questions of ministers, to ask where the money will go and exactly how it will be spent. This is one of the reasons why it is very difficult and inappropriate to push through an appropriation bill within two days.
There is $1.6 million to establish funding for the new department, including a new chief executive, executive structure and corporate activities. This is the sort of thing on which, in an estimates process, even a truncated one, we would look forward to questioning relevant ministers. There is $75,000 for the green star rating scheme. This is something that, in principle, is good, but we do need to look at the effects of this, particularly as we move to the sixth star that is in the agreement, I understand, between Labor and the Greens. This will be a real issue. We support the principle, but we do need to look at how much it will cost industry to impose six-star ratings. That is going to be an issue of concern as we move into the future.
There is $1.9 million for the arboretum. We have already spoken at length about the merits of pursuing such a project in a drought. We do not believe that this has been
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .