Page 1900 - Week 06 - Thursday, 5 May 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
government community events”. Which key community events might they be—the Chief Minister’s next command performance, his sailing regatta or the 2006 Stanhope tiddlywinks championship? But there is nothing for students with disabilities in non-government schools. According to the Canberra Times, Ms Gallagher has told them they can go cap in hand to the commonwealth because the ALP regards ideology as more important than providing basic services to the most vulnerable in our society.
The full extent of the Stanhope government’s preferences for gestures and monuments over policy and substance is better illustrated by its provision in this budget for the environment—actually, one should say the total absence of any substantive provision at all for the environment. There is, of course, a separate section in budget paper No 3 devoted to the environment and just a few pages after the section given to the women’s statement. In both of these we find a set of platitudes that would not be out of place in Who Weekly.
For women, we are told that the government is committed to good health and well-being—sorry, chaps; you are not there—responsive housing, whatever that means, and safe inclusive communities. For the environment, the Stanhope administration supports the Office of the Commissioner for the Environment, seeks to promote, protect and conserve the ACT’s diverse and significant cultural heritage—and for some reason this is listed as an area of particular environmental focus—and continues its support for visitor services and community engagement in natural and cultural heritage management. There is nothing wrong with platitudes, whether about the environment or women—or, I don’t know, pit bull terriers—but there is something wrong with tokenism. There is a lot wrong with budget platitudes that are not backed up by financial substance.
The 2005-06 highlights of the Chief Minister’s Department contain only one imprecise reference to the environment, namely, facilitating key sustainability policy initiatives and identifying opportunities to more clearly align sustainability and environmental policies and programs. That could mean anything or nothing. Perhaps if we had an interactive whiteboard when the Chief Minister was here, he could explain to us what all that means.
When it comes to substantive government commitments, the pickings are pretty slim indeed. There will be, for example, $1 million to replace aging plant and equipment in Environment ACT; $160,000 for monitoring groundwater use; $20,000 a year to supplement the home energy advisory service; a quarter of a million dollars for a feasibility study for an ACT government building, and I take it that this will help promote, protect and conserve the ACT’s diverse and significant cultural heritage and that there is a particular environmental focus in this building.
By comparison, how much has been set aside for monuments? There is an additional $6 million over four years to develop a new recreation area at Stromlo Forest park; an extra $4.1 million in recurrent and capital funding for the international arboretum and gardens—Lord help us—in addition to the $10 million that has already been allocated. That is $14.1 million, by coincidence exactly the same amount of additional funds over four years that this government boasts it will spend on vocational education and training.
I almost forgot one. There will be asset refurbishment at the government horse paddocks. But the money for this will come from what is no longer being spent on greenhouse initiatives, such as the solar hot water rebate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .