Page 747 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 29 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I made the point earlier that the grants budget, which is now about $2.5 million—although ACTSPORT said it was $2.4 million; let us give the government credit and say it is $2.5 million—in 2001-02 was $2.357 million. So that has not grown by CPI, which is normal there. There have been allegations of a cut of $60,000 in the last financial year.
It would seem the government already has made a couple of cuts to the sports budget. In congratulating itself on its outstanding support, it needs to have regard to the fact that the money it spends has not increased. It has gone backwards for some of the grants. Certainly at the Academy of Sport we have gone from 275 athletes down to about 220 or 230. The national teams funding, which might not have been in this budget but might still have been in Business ACT, was $600,000. That is down to $570,000.
Those figures are relevant not only to correct the record but also to indicate that, whilst the government certainly has continued a number of initiatives which previous governments have done and has instituted a few itself—and I commend it on that—it should not congratulate itself on its outstanding support. The community are rightly concerned.
The Chief Minister mentions the kids at play program, a particular pet program of the former minister for sport. The Labor Party’s sport and recreation policy was launched with that background. The government trumpeted, in November last year, that some 17,000 kids had been made active, which is fantastic. Full marks to you for that. That is a good program. Yet a couple of weeks ago we heard it has been halved; it has been cut; it was too successful. There was talk—it might have been confirmed even—that it was not to continue past the end of this year. Those are the very programs that would be the last thing you would want to cut if you want to have a fit and active community and want to save on health costs.
This habit of the government to move amendments congratulating themselves is rather pathetic. If you do not like it—and you have already stated reasons why you cannot support my motion—say so and then vote it down. I suppose we could have, given it is eight-all in this Assembly, refused to give you leave to move your amendments together. That might have been a bit churlish. It is important to have the debate and important for me to put some of these facts and figures on the record.
I agree with Dr Foskey—and I thank her for her comments disagreeing with the government for substituting part of my motion—that that certainly does cut completely the one substantive part of my motion, which is a very simple part, and that is simply to keep the office of Sport Recreation ACT intact, for very, very good reasons. That does not compromise your functional review one iota.
Question put:
That Mr Stanhope’s amendments be agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .