Page 1951 - Week 05 - Thursday, 5 May 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
have empty houses while mortgage and rental pressures are pushing people to the edge.
We see very little mention in this year’s budget of the heritage portfolio. What we do see, however, is the heralding of $10.3 million for the arts and heritage places by way of a budget media release. The fine print, however, reveals that only $150,000 of this amount is allocated to expanding the “Canberra tracks” initiative.
The heritage unit, currently located in the Chief Minister’s Department, has been described by Dr Allan Hawke in the public service review as being one of the “fragmented” functions in its current location. It remains to be seen whether or not the relocation of this unit to the new sustainable development directorate will alleviate this fragmentation and therefore allow for some real strategic work to be advanced.
The estimated cost of youth services for 2010-11 was $22.465 million, which was a marginal saving on the budgeted figure of $22.567 million. However, the cost is forecast to grow to $24.199 million in the next year. The cost per custody day at the Bimberi Youth Justice Centre was slightly lower than the targeted cost of $955, but this was only achieved because the government’s target of 7,000 custody days was exceeded by 1,000 custody days, which is a huge increase. In addition to that, the government has chosen to remove the cost per custody day from the 2011-12 budget, so there is no direct comparison available for the next year. However, it also has to be said that the cost of $19,460 per youth services client is extremely high.
The budget also includes $1.55 million for a security upgrade at Bimberi. How can it be that a state-of-the-art facility, apparently, that cost $40 million for a 40-bed facility that is less than two years old, needs an upgrade? This is absolutely outrageous and it is indicative of this government’s inability to manage the youth portfolio and their inability to manage the budget.
This is a budget with very little in tangible improvements for the residents of Canberra in exchange for the roughly $4 billion of revenue and expenditure. This government is irresponsible when it comes to dealing with the priorities for our city and in dealing with the funds provided to it by its residents.
I believe Canberra is a good place, but it could be even better. I want to see a government that do not concentrate on grandiose schemes and pet projects but concentrate on the core business of running this city-state. Whether it be in areas such as transport, urban services, housing, heritage, youth or the many other portfolio areas, this government need to do more in delivering real tangibles for the real money that they receive through taxes.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (4.42): I am pleased to take this opportunity to speak about this year’s budget and particularly to endorse the comments made by my colleague Meredith Hunter and to use the time that I have available today to focus on the areas of my portfolio responsibility.
I would like to start with climate change and energy. I think the government has focused this year’s budget on two main areas: government operations, and the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video