Page 1657 - Week 08 - Thursday, 28 September 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
interest, welcome. But, of course, there is nothing that takes account of the special needs and differences that apply here, the climatic, social and economic demands that our homeless youth have to face. There is nothing, either, that takes account of the damage the Follett Government is doing elsewhere in its budget.
Youth homelessness does not exist in isolation. Some States are directing additional resources into education in the knowledge that, even in times of hardship, we must offer our children the means of escaping unemployment and homelessness through adequate education. The Government needs to do more, much more, in identifying and targeting our specific problems, not all of which will be answered by following where other governments lead.
Although I do not have the time to look at the numerous items of expenditure or reduced expenditure, let me mention one in passing, since it reflects the Government's basic ambivalence about social justice. Ms Follett expects our acclamation for the reprieve she has offered the Galilee Fostering Service. This she must do. Why else would she single out this relatively small expenditure item in a budget speech setting out her grand expected achievements? All that she has managed to do by extending Galilee's funding until March 1990 is to loosen the noose she has placed around the service's neck. Now it must somehow continue to operate, wondering whether that noose will be pulled tight again in six months. Yet, like our nurses, who must now live only with the promise that their future employment will be negotiated, Ms Follett expects Galilee to go on providing the same dedicated level of service. I am sure that it will do best in this morale damaging situation, but I am equally sure that it deserves to be free of the pressure of uncertainty.
If we cannot say that social justice and social services have improved or even held their ground as a result of this budget, we have to ask ourselves who benefits. Does anyone benefit, or are we all being asked to pull our belts in equally? If that were so, we might find some cause for accepting that overall the budget is necessary and responsible. But it is not so, and we do not need to look very far to see why.
Ms Follett tells us, again with a sense of pride, that even though she has achieved a lower level of borrowings than expected, it has not affected the planned increase of over 10 per cent in overall construction spending. What this means to the Rally is the selective and generous lining of Mr Whalan's portfolio purse. In other circumstances we might have taken this spending increase as some kind of Keynesian attempt to boost the economy, but we have learned to be more suspicious than that.
We find it curious that this pocket into which the money is going is the one in Mr Whalan's portfolio area where he has demonstrated an almost single-minded interest. Why? It is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .