Page 3200 - Week 10 - Thursday, 16 September 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR BERRY: I do recall the motion. We have, on reflection, had discussions with an interest group concerned with that particular issue. I understand that discussions have proceeded on the basis that at some point in the redevelopment project further provision will be made within the project for that sort of service. It has not been included in this year's budget and it would be part of the redevelopment project.
Home and Community Care Program
MR HUMPHRIES: My question is to the Chief Minister and Treasurer. I refer to the decision in Tuesday's fudge-it budget to offer no indexation of the services funded in Canberra through the home and community care program. I assume that the Minister is aware of the vital importance of this program and that it is already under severe strain. Can the Chief Minister confirm that the ACT will be unable to access the 6 per cent increase in HACC funding promised by the Federal Government this year unless we match that funding? In other words, have we forgone the Federal Government's extra funding as a result of this miserly budget? I also ask: Can the Chief Minister tell us, given that the aged population of Canberra will grow this year by 4 per cent, why she has offered no increase in the funding of the HACC program? Will she concede that the HACC program has been left underfunded as a result of that population increase and her own inability to match increased funding?
MS FOLLETT: I will allow the Minister responsible to reply.
MR CONNOLLY: The Liberals are at it again - "Spend more, spend more; it is only money" - when their Chamber of Commerce mates yesterday were criticising the budget as being too soft on welfare issues. The facts of the matter in relation to the HACC program are these, Madam Speaker: The ACT is essentially the victim of the two-card trick in relation to HACC funding. The Commonwealth massively reduced the ACT's grants, as was made abundantly clear in the opening to the budget.
Mr Humphries: Did you condemn them for that?
MR CONNOLLY: Yes, we did, in relation to that, and specifically in relation to HACC. If you had been observing the press on this issue for some months you would be better informed. At the same time that our grants were massively reduced, the Commonwealth said, "In relation to HACC, we will have growth funds available if you can match them". So while they are taking a very large sum of money out of one pocket, they are saying, "You can have some more if you can match it". Last year the same thing occurred. Very few States were able to match last year's HACC funds.
I wrote to all of my ministerial colleagues with a view to a joint approach to the Commonwealth from all the States. We were most affected because last year, as this year, our reduction in Commonwealth funding was the most massive. We sought to make a general approach to the Commonwealth to say, "It is impossible for most States to match your proposed increase. Can you release that amount of money that has been set aside in the Commonwealth budget for HACC growth and pro rata it across the States?". That way at least we would get something. Unfortunately, the Commonwealth did not agree to that request.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .