Page 634 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 4 July 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
terms of reference of the committee proposed by Mr Duby. Whatever time it requires,
be it short or lengthy, could well be allowed.
I commend the amendment to the house. Unfortunately, as Mr Kaine said, he feels there will be little support for the matter. Unfortunately, I feel there will be no support for the matter. And again I ask the question: If there is nothing that needs to be looked at, why? I commend the amendment to the house.
MR SPEAKER: I remind members who take part in this debate that they will be speaking to the original motion and the amendment.
MS MAHER (8.38): I speak in support of this motion and in particular I wish to address the need for a full investigation into the form of government most appropriate in the ACT and a thorough examination into the ACT electoral system. However, before I commence, I would like to refresh members' memories as to some of the matters raised by my colleague Mr Duby in his address to the Assembly last Wednesday. You will recall that Mr Duby spoke to the urgent need for this select committee to inquire into and report on a financial agreement between the ACT and the Commonwealth as a result of self-government for the Territory, because, as he said:
We are in the most imminent danger, through the passage of time, of appearing to accede to the most punitive and unjust arrangements any fledgling colony, State or territory of Australia has had imposed upon it in the history of this country.
He pointed out that since the Craig report on the implementation of ACT self-government was first brought down in 1984, the Commonwealth commitment to maintenance of funding for the ACT was cut from five years to three years, and to the fact that the Commonwealth commitment of maintenance for funding was set at 1987-88 levels. In other words, as our population grows - and it is the fastest growing population in the Federation - per capita expenditure must fall.
He pointed out how the Commonwealth guarantee was limited in the narrowest possible terms to only general purpose recurrent expenditure and that there were a range of other Commonwealth payments to which guarantee could be argued to apply, such as specific purpose payments, debt servicing, responsibility for superannuation and the establishment cost of self-government itself.
In addition, there were other matters which deserved attention, such as sales by the Commonwealth of ACT assets, the asbestos scandal, the way major public buildings such as the Royal Canberra Hospital and the Melba flats have been allowed to fall into disrepair. All of these issues point to the vital need to establish a firm contractual
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .