Page 1158 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 22 August 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
which, as it turns out when a close examination of the figures is made, are not true indicators of the real case. Nevertheless, I do not think it is good enough.
We have a government which is supposedly committed to consultants - obviously committed to consultants in relation to the budget - and to consulting other people, other members of this house, and in trying to explain things. I would have imagined that the way this Assembly should be going in relation to the Commonwealth budget is that of, if not a bipartisan approach, a quadripartisan approach so that all parties in the house could fully understand and digest the implications of the Commonwealth budget upon the citizens of the ACT.
If it had been a non-Labor government, I guarantee that we would be hearing howls of derision from the Labor members, saying how badly done by the citizens of Canberra are. All in all, I do not think it is a good budget for the people of the ACT, but it has taken me a week to go through the figures. No matter which way I look at it, the figures always seem to be different.
In the budget statement presented by Mr Keating, at paragraph 7.15, I almost had heart failure when I read this:
As a result of ACT self-government, outlays specifically on the ACT will decrease overall in 1989-90 by approximately $325m.
That is what it says, at paragraph 7.15 of that statement. Outlays for other functions also have decreased. But then when you go to the other side you realise that revenue from the ACT will decrease by approximately $260m. I assume that it is revenue which previously went into the Commonwealth and then was fed back to us, but which we are now keeping, so the Commonwealth has stopped receiving those figures.
Nevertheless, the bottom line, as far as I can see, is that, as a result of ACT self-government, outlays will decrease by $325m. Revenues from the ACT will decrease by approximately $260m. That still boils down to the fact that it is spending $65m less in outlays on the ACT. Nowhere in this statement has this figure been addressed by the Chief Minister. We have these magical accounting variations to describe how a cut in funding of $148m is not a cut in funding at all. I just do not think this situation is good enough.
I do not know whether other members of the house have noticed, but when those figures were handed out last week by ACT Treasury folk they did not add up; they were out by $5m. We had to ask, "What is going on?". Of course they said, "Somebody else made a mistake; it was not us". I asked for a detailed statement. The Chief Minister knew of my doubts and concerns on those items. What do we get? It is consultation, all right - a handout of a speech and, finally, some explanation of what these items refer to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .