Page 1660 - Week 08 - Thursday, 28 September 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This, the Chief Minister says, would of course be welcome if it were possible. Let me tell the Government that countercyclical expenditure in this year is not a luxury but an absolute necessity. It is an investment in the ACT economy which will reap large dividends in the future by maintaining the growth and vitality of the ACT economy and not allowing it to fall into a hole out of which it could take years to crawl.
The Government has chosen not to respond to the contractionary forces in the economy. This must make the reduction in economic activity worse and the Government tax take lower, with inevitable cuts in vital government services the result. The Government argues in budget paper No. 2 that it would be foolhardy to spend funds held in reserve before an agreement with the Commonwealth is reached. Let me say that my submissions to the budget consultative committee listed nine measures by which over $120m could be raised to fund a countercyclical budget strategy whilst maintaining a balanced budget. Not one of these measures is foolhardy or irresponsible.
To await the Federal Government's pleasure in responding to the urgent needs of the ACT when we are facing mass bankruptcies and a doubling of unemployment is, to my mind, the height of foolhardiness. The fact is that the bulk of the funds which could be used to maintain activity are already in the hands of the ACT Government in the form of surplus funds set aside from 1988-89 to pay the Commonwealth for serviced land transferred to the ACT. There is no timetable set for such payments, so it is perfectly reasonable to use a substantial part of this reserve in the interests of the ACT economy and to dictate the terms of repayment to the Commonwealth.
By rejecting the approach that my party has proposed, the Government has revealed its commitment to social justice to be very hollow indeed. In a macro-economic sense it is standing by and allowing the economy to collapse into a recessionary hole. This means much higher unemployment, greater hardship for families in this high interest rate environment, loss of homes, a contraction of vital government services and businesses going broke.
We make these comments not from an uninformed standpoint but from comparing the performance of other States in this difficult economic climate. We have found that the other smaller States have adopted similar approaches to what we have been urging on this Government. Queensland, for example, has brought down a budget which increases outlays by 10.3 per cent, compared with the ACT's 8 per cent. And the Queensland economy is much more buoyant than that of the ACT. South Australia has adopted a similar policy.
Let me now turn to the particular matter in the budget where I believe the Government must consider reversing its policy. The Government decided not to take up its full
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .