Page 1447 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 1 May 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
something which it is not. We must build and expand on what we have.
Payroll tax, rents and other revenue raising measures which are available to the States are not so open to us because our business is about supporting a Commonwealth government which is exempt from such things. Our method is to argue better in the Grants Commission. What hope have we got when our negotiators have given away the bottom line before they even start?
Speaking of hard decisions, let us get rid of any pseudo-moralistic grounds and rapidly introduce a tax on the X-rated industry. Chief Minister, you supported Dennis' ban and it did not work. The majority of people do not want to see the X-rated industry banned; however, let me assure you, they want it taxed. Make a genuine, hard decision; raise $5m or so from them.
"At the very least, 1990-91 grants should be real at 1989-90 levels", you say on page 7. That is the negotiating point that you give away. Before you even start you have given them your back-down position. What kind of negotiation is that? Basic negotiating skills require that you do not come to your bottom line until you are driven to it. It is pathetic.
The most positive statement in the whole strategy is a statement reflecting the long-term vision, as found on page 9:
Various States have been caught up by policies which have allowed for high borrowing regimes which are now coming back to haunt them. A significant proportion of some States' recurrent budgets are tied up in just paying interest on the debts that have accumulated. We will not allow this to happen in the ACT.
Congratulations; that is great; I think that is a significant step forward and I applaud it. What has happened in those States is that they have borrowed to pay capital expenditure and they are now paying the debts and interest from their recurrent expenditure. It is simply, therefore, a method of transferring money from the recurrent to the capital account. My suggestion actually operates in the reverse. (Extension of time granted)
Avoid that situation, I agree, but take the extra step and transfer the spending so that more of our money goes into the recurrent budget than into the capital budget. If we are to look at a few particulars which would benefit from a transfer of money from capital to recurrent, I would like to start with public health. At the moment we have two and a half public hospitals and one private. Under an Alliance plan we will have two public hospitals and one and a half private. This budget strategy should recognise this equation and resist the incredible capital expense which we
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .