Page 2187 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 6 June 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I am also concerned about reports that some of the ACT's pine plantations may be sold off for alternative uses. I do not believe that the pine forests are sacrosanct but I do believe that we need to be cautious of the environmental impact of such decisions. In particular, we have a responsibility to protect the Molonglo River from urban run-off and pollution. This responsibility is not confined to the ACT but involves Australia's crucial Murray-Darling river system.
I would like to stress that I am not opposed to improving the efficiency of the public sector. In this regard there are some recommendations in the report which do seem sensible. The establishment of an ACT Government Service office to undertake common service functions is sensible. There are certainly efficiencies to be gained from the central coordination of property and purchasing. There are other specific proposals in the report dealing with improving the effectiveness of public sector operations which could be implemented. Others, such as the increased use of interagency charging, must be seen to be of limited benefit to an administration of this size.
What the Labor Party opposes most in the recommendations of the board is their predictable stance that the private sector is good and the public sector is bad. This is why they suggest that privatisation, contracting out, corporatisation and expenditure cuts are appropriate. They shift service provision from the public sector to the private sector. No evidence is provided to sustain this belief, and that is simply because there is no evidence; it is simply the belief of the Priorities Review Board and of the Liberal Party.
My own experience in the public sector does not allow me to support this view. I also believe that there is no need for it. The adjustment required to the ACT budget can occur without an all-out attack on the quality and quantity of public services.
The consideration given by the Priorities Review Board to revenue raising is also interesting. The bias in the board's comments is quite clear. Again the CARD line is followed. Business taxes should be reduced and individual taxes increased. The board argue for the removal of payroll tax yet again, even though they recognise that it is the single largest revenue earner for all States, including the ACT. The board argue that public services should be slashed so payroll tax can be cut.
On the other hand, the board argue that municipal rates, which predominantly impact on individuals, should be increased by up to 10 per cent. They also argue that bus fares be increased significantly on so-called efficiency grounds, completely neglecting the environmental and social consequences of this. Again it is quite clear from the actions of the Government that they are already implementing the Priorities Review Board's agenda. (Extension of time granted)
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .