Page 4515 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Convenor, ACT Greens) (6.30): I am obviously disappointed that the Liberal Party today could not support what was a significant part of this motion. The reason we put it forward is that we recognise that it is these vital front-line services that are getting out there and providing the emergency relief, providing the shelter through homelessness services and so forth. These organisations are finding that there is increasing need, an increasing number of Canberrans needing help, and that many of the people approaching them have never sought the assistance of these services before.
That is why a time like this is not the time to apply a cutback to those services. It would have a terrible impact on those individuals and families who are doing it very tough; who are finding it hard enough at the moment to feed their children in a nutritious way; whose children are missing out on a lot of excursions and sometimes the necessities in life. That is why it is so important, at a time like this when these organisations have an increased demand on their services that they are not meeting, that we draw a line in the sand and ensure that they can at least plan and deliver at the current rate. So the Liberal Party response is incredibly disappointing.
There is a very large task ahead here in the ACT around ensuring that the budget does come back into surplus and no doubt some very hard decisions will have to be made. But this is not the time to be cutting back on vital services that are being relied upon by so many people across the Canberra community. I really do thank the government for recognising that and supporting this motion. I express my great disappointment that the Liberal Party are not supporting paragraph (3) of the motion today.
MS GALLAGHER (Molonglo—Treasurer, Minister for Health, Minister for Community Services and Minister for Women) (6.33): The government will oppose the Liberals’ amendment as well. I understand what Mrs Dunne said in her explanation of the amendment about quarantining certain parts of the funds that are received from government, whether it be to government agencies or to the non-government sector, and the difficulties that poses. However, I am comfortable in the sense that this talks specifically about the efficiency dividend.
The efficiency dividend relates to the one per cent target which we have set ourselves for that first year. It does not commit us further beyond that in order of the savings task. That is the reason why I am comfortable with this and why in my original address I did say, however, for us not to forget that there is a significant savings task ahead of us. It would be difficult if we just said, “We commit to quarantine this group and this group.” We have to approach that task—and certainly this is the way I am approaching it—with a very open mind about where we find those savings from or where we increase revenue to assist with that budget recovery.
In relation to the efficiency dividend, I am quite comfortable with it. The government is quite well along the way of the work that is going into that process of asking agencies to identify their one per cent savings ideas for the consideration of budget cabinet in the lead-up to putting together the 2010-11 budget.
With my community services hat on, I would have to say that I certainly support everything Ms Hunter has said. My feedback from the community sector, and I think I
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .