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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 986 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

There is a lot more work to be done on the budget, and I would hope that the Minister and the Government can see where those needs should be met.

MR RUGENDYKE (4.59): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I applaud the Assembly and I applaud the mechanism by which this trial budget process has been conducted. I am very pleased with the way the trial has gone. I am fully supportive of the concept of a trial budget, and it is in that vein that I commend this report to the house.

There is, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, one recommendation that was not unanimous. I draw members' attention to recommendation 18. Two members of the committee, Mr Hird and I, disagreed with the allocation of $750,000 in each of the next two financial years for the establishment of a drug injecting clinic. Mr Hird and I were of the view that these funds would be much better spent in providing improved drug education in the community.

At 5.00 pm the debate was interrupted in accordance with standing order 34. The motion for the adjournment of the Assembly having been put and negatived, the debate was resumed.

Mr Moore: What a shame to interrupt you just there.

MR RUGENDYKE: Yes, it was a very timely interruption, but I will pick up my thread of thought. In recommendation 18, Mr Hird and I recommend that the Government redirect funding proposed for the supervised injecting room trial to improved community drug education measures. Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, this will be an appropriate test for this trial budget process. Will the Government accept the recommendation of the majority of the committee and reallocate that money to drug education? One thing the Health Committee did discover was that it was not really argued that there is a large degree of unmet need in the health and drug area.

I must say though that Mr Wood's dissent on this point is a valid one from his point of view because the Labor Party has supported the drug injecting clinic. I do not hold that against Mr Wood. I think it is quite appropriate for him to dissent in that way. Whether or not the Government will reallocate this money as recommended by the majority of the committee is a good test for this trial budget.

Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I commend this report of the Standing Committee on Health and Community Care to the Assembly. It is a very good and thorough analysis of the proposed budget. It is a good process that allows community groups a couple of bites at the cherry for input into the budget and discussion of budgetary issues prior to the tabling of the budget. I see it as a very good and worthwhile process.

Debate (on motion by Mr Moore ) adjourned.

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