Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 4 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 1073 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

I turn now to transport. I am also interested, of course, to see the vehicle registration increase for larger cars. It can be seen to be a move in the right direction for the implications for greenhouse gas reduction; but I would love to have seen something more proactive in actually assisting people to access alternative fuel, clean fuel like natural gas. I noticed that the Government is prepared to hypothecate particular rises in levies or income-generating measures of this budget to a particular area, as they did with the fire and ambulance services. Perhaps it would have been good, if they do not mind doing it, which they obviously do not, to have done that with the increase in revenue from the registration fees. It could have gone to the research and development fund they have asked Brendan Smyth to consider re-establishing after the loss of that fund with the loss of the gas levy.

Next is the public transport aspect of the budget. I have said before in this place that I am very supportive of most of the Graham report, but we have not supported the zone-based fare system. We have always said that time-based tickets were proven to be much more effective in other cities around the world in encouraging consumers or the citizens to use buses, and there certainly will still be people having to pay more than they should to use the bus system. It has been shown quite clearly that this Government right now is saying it wants to make ACTION pay its way. Cities where governments have gone wholeheartedly into supporting public transport with time-based tickets and really efficient, regular and reliable services have not had any problem in managing to run a public transport system and subsidise it a lot less than we have done here.

I have said before and I say again that I think the most mean-spirited part of this budget is to increase the rent for people in public housing. I am sure members are aware of the Smith Family's recent report on how impoverished many people are in public housing. Many of them cannot afford to pay for their heating, and cannot afford to pay for their food because of the impost on their income from the rent. This increase in this budget is something which I find extremely offensive, particularly coming as it does in the middle of winter. I know personally two people who cannot afford to heat their houses, cannot afford to use the electricity, because they know they will not be able to pay the bill.

In the area of health, it is interesting to see an increase in expenditure to reduce the dental waiting lists. I am pleased to see that and I hope it does make a difference. The election promise of a secure care facility for mental health and extra money for community-based facilities is good. From memory, I think it was another $400,000, which should make some difference; although we still see, with mental health funding, as much as I have been able to work out, that it is still very much focused on the acute end. I understand that there are challenges there, but the community sector certainly has to be constantly supported. It has to be clear that if they are not adequately supported we cannot continue to support the rhetoric of the - - -

Mr Moore: It has put nearly half a million dollars into the community end.

MS TUCKER: Mr Moore says that half a million dollars has been put into the community sector. I acknowledge that, Mr Moore. Yes, I think that is about double. I have acknowledged that that is an increase. What I am saying is that it is really important that we ensure that we are meeting the need, because we are also seeing

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .