Page 1602 - Week 06 - Thursday, 7 June 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I am conscious of the complexities surrounding the funding of individual support packages. In previous years, I note, difficult decision had to be made in regard to which individuals could receive funding support under this program. I am conscious that it would be difficult for a minister presiding over the funding of this program to make decisions over what forms of funding support each individual should receive and to what extent each support package should be provided. Resources are naturally the greatest issue and it is encouraging that a portion of the budget funding is to be directed to the provision of further funding support to Canberrans who are well and truly deserving of government-funded support to improve their quality of life.
I understand the minister has been insistent that the ACT is not receiving a fair share of funding, in comparison with other states, from the commonwealth. The ACT may be receiving lower funds matching from the commonwealth, but it is now up to the ACT government and the minister to meet further requirements for greater accountability in order to receive a greater share of commonwealth-state disability agreement funds. I would be supportive, as I have said in this place, of any further funding allocation from the commonwealth to tackle unmet need in the disability services sector in the ACT. However, when faced with an outcomes-based focus, any funding increase should always have conditions attached in relation to meeting targets and justification for the funding allotment.
In fact, that is what the federal minister has said. If we can prove our case, he will consider meeting the unmet need, but we must be prepared to push the commonwealth hard and present a case that says, “We have done everything we can do. We request that you carefully look at our submission.” I do note, however, that the recent Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs report saw a unanimous approach to addressing inequities in funding for the disability sector across each jurisdiction. I agree with such a sentiment, but only on the condition that extra funding on offer from the commonwealth is conditional on greater accountability and quantification of areas of need.
It really would be a pity if the health minister allowed politicking to impede our chances of increased funding from the commonwealth. I am sure that she is not going to do that. I am sure that she will push as hard as she can for the people of the ACT. Good governance is the issue, and the Stanhope government need only provide evidence of an improvement in accountability and efficiency measures in the sector. All that is required is a transparent and convincing argument for further funds matching. I trust that when the states and territories sign up to the commonwealth-state disability agreement the ACT will be in a firmer position to justify a better funding allocation from the commonwealth.
Mr Speaker, I move on to housing in regard to the budget. Public housing in the ACT seems again to have received what can only be described as a desperately needed funding boost just to be able to cope with greater demand placed on housing assistance services in the ACT. I would make the point here that it is fascinating that the Minister for Housing has already had to head back to cabinet to ask for another $4.3 million in the 2007-08 budget on top of the Stanhope government’s election commitment of $30 million over three years for public housing, which, incidentally, took a few years to turn up after the 2004 election.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .