Page 2151 - Week 06 - Thursday, 7 May 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
minister for the arts, that, while the Liberal Party are not supporters of the per cent for art scheme, we are not opposed to public art. The Liberals are supportive of the arts in Canberra, including public arts. We just think, and so does the arts community, that any arts program should be properly targeted towards ACT artists. The per cent for art scheme did not do that. With the scrapping for the per cent for art scheme, there will be $1.2 million for public art in the next two years, but after that there is nothing.
Also in the arts portfolio I note the rollover of expenditure on the Belconnen arts facility, which indicates that they are behind schedule with the building of the arts centre, and there is no anticipation of the building of an auditorium, although there are auditoriums being built elsewhere under other budget initiatives.
In the important area of family services, Mr Coe has touched on some issues, and I have to reinforce his concern about the rise in the number of children in the care of the chief executive. Over a number of years, I have expressed a concern about the high rate of children in care, especially Indigenous children, but to see a five per cent increase this year is concerning. These matters will be raised during the estimates process.
I also welcome the money for Therapy ACT, which is part of the government’s election commitment to provide eight speech therapists for four years. My only concern in this area is that over the years I have heard the previous ministers tell members of the estimates committee how difficult it is to find speech therapists. It is all very well to fund them, but we do actually need to fill those places to provide the services to people, especially children with autism spectrum disorder who are particularly in need.
The out-of-home assistance is very welcome. But, again, this is an area where there is an allocation of money but it is very light on detail. You, Mr Speaker, alluded to the lack of detail in the budget. It is nothing new; it always looks like this, and it will take a lot of digging for us to get down to the nuts and bolts of what the government proposes to do with this very important expenditure for these most vulnerable children. I hope that with this increased expenditure the minister will be able to see his way clear to hire Australians in the future to do the job when they are here and available and qualified to do so.
Although it is not directly in my portfolio area, it is an area of some interest, so I will touch on the proposal for the development of the foyer model for outreach housing or supported housing for young people. I note that there is $1.1 million over four years for transitional housing in this area. In addition, there is also presumably capital money coming out of the national homeless partnership agreement. This is another area where the ACT government is depending on a handout from the federal government. But I think that the youth foyer model, which was developed in postwar France and is now spreading across the world including Australia, is highly innovative. I know that officials from the department of housing went overseas last year to look at the operation of foyer in the UK. I was very pleased to hear that, and I am very pleased to see this initiative in the budget.
A word of caution, though, is that those people involved in the establishment of foyer point out that there is a long lead time to its effective establishment, and the capital
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .