Page 3082 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 10 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
decisions in the ACT community. I regret very much that the capital works program has been trimmed in such a way as to, in effect, hide the shortcomings of the Government in failing to address the real issue that the ACT budget has to address, namely, our overexpenditure in the past - I will agree with that - and continued overexpenditure, from what we can see from this capital works program, in the future, on the recurrent side. That is where the effort needs to be made. You are borrowing from Peter to pay for Paul and, at the same time, providing a large commitment of funds to be found by future governments and future generations in the ACT.
MR MOORE (5.12): Mr Speaker, I take great pleasure in taking a few minutes to disagree with Mr Duby. A $17m cut in expenditure on capital works at this stage is really something equivalent to a $5m cut if you take into account the fact that the Alliance Government under Trevor Kaine last year increased capital expenditure by some $12m, as my memory serves me. If that is the case, it is a question of coming back to - - -
Ms Follett: And then could not spend it.
MR MOORE: Ms Follett interjects that anyway they did not spend it. If I remember the figures correctly, something like $40m was borrowed and some $11m of that was not spent. I think that is in the right order. The point, as far as the capital works program goes and as far as the recurrent budget goes, is that in taking government we were left with a set of priorities that were established by a set of bureaucrats who felt that it was appropriate that we had a certain amount of recurrent expenditure and a certain amount of capital expenditure, and that is how we should be treated in terms of the ACT.
Mr Duby: What is this, "In taking government we were left"?
MR MOORE: I am speaking about prior to self-government.
Mr Duby: I thought we were speaking about the capital works program for 1991-92.
MR MOORE: Yes, and I am referring back to how the priorities were originally established. A government of this Territory ought to have as its first responsibility the establishment of its own priorities. If those priorities are different from what was set by a group of bureaucrats, that is entirely appropriate. It is entirely appropriate that there is a shift of emphasis between recurrent and capital. Many people driving around Canberra and looking around Canberra appreciate that we have a good capital infrastructure, especially compared to that of other cities.
Mr Duby: Not for long, at this rate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .