Page 3083 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 10 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR MOORE: To now establish a different set of priorities in difficult economic times is entirely appropriate. Mr Duby relies very heavily on the MBA and the BWIU in terms of what they perceive as being the number of jobs lost. It is important to point out that they have a vested interest in emphasising the number of jobs, so I think those figures need to be taken in that light; then we can understand them more appropriately.
Mr Duby: Okay; halve it, and you are still talking about 300 jobs lost.
MR MOORE: In difficult times it is appropriate that we look very carefully at our balance between the capital budget and the recurrent budget. Mr Duby interjects and says, "All right, halve it and it will be only 300 jobs lost". If we are really serious about jobs in the construction industry, we should be trying to find ways to provide incentives for the private sector to be involved in building and the building industry where it suits us. I would suggest, for example, that this Government should be approaching the Federal Government and the head of the Taxation Office and saying that we are prepared to provide appropriate incentives in order to get the whole Taxation Office out at Gungahlin, and including the provision of land, in effect for zilch, for nothing.
I think that is an appropriate way to use our leasehold system; it is an appropriate way to provide incentives. I would encourage the Chief Minister to look at taking that kind of approach through her Federal counterparts and through people like Mr Boucher, the head of the Taxation Office, to see whether it is necessary for this Assembly to agree to fast track a proposal at Gungahlin. I would certainly support that. There are many other possibilities within the general concept that I am suggesting.
There is the way to get the building industry back onto its feet - by providing such incentives, not by saying that we have to do this because it provides jobs. The jobs come as a consequence of doing what we need to do. I think that is the most appropriate approach to both our recurrent budget and our capital budget, and it is most appropriate that we look at our capital budget and see what we can manage without for the time being. That is the approach that this Government has taken on the capital budget, and I think it is an entirely appropriate budget strategy.
I just wonder whether it has gone quite far enough. Contrary to the way Mr Kaine and Mr Duby would approach it, I would be quite pleased if another $3m, $4m or $5m came out. If next week's budget reveals that there are even further cuts to the capital budget, I would see that as being responsible, provided that there are areas that we can manage without. Time and time again we hear people in Canberra saying, "We can manage for some time without more roundabouts and without more pink pavers". Where roundabouts are a safety issue, obviously they are entirely
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .