Page 3542 - Week 12 - Thursday, 19 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
My Government bit the hard economic bullet and sought answers to the difficult problems. We understood that there were very serious problems and we embarked on a long-term strategy. We set up a Priorities Review Board with specific references to look at government expenditure and we set about determining what assets and related liabilities we had inherited.
We embarked on a four-point strategy which encompassed development of the private sector in the ACT and the regional economy; balancing the recurrent budget; minimising the Territory's borrowings; and making full use of the capital assets that were transferred to us. They were good, solid, long-term objectives, unlike the simplistic remedies suggested by Ms Follett in both her previous budget in 1989 and her July 1991 statement. Incidentally, this latter document was presented as a budget strategy statement but, in fact, contains no strategy.
Our best advice - and it was good advice - was, specifically, that there was a real need to curb government expenditure, not across the board but selectively after close analysis of government functions and programs. It was obvious that decisive action was required to consolidate the resources of government to ensure the delivery of services at the highest possible standard and at considerably reduced cost to the community. Given the findings of consecutive Grants Commission inquiries, there was no real scope or necessity to raise significantly greater revenues. Expenditure reduction was the principal imperative.
That is what good long-term financial planning is all about. But, of course, Ms Follett and her colleagues clearly are unaware of, or do not understand, these basic principles. She and her colleagues have continued to perpetrate the consultation hoax that she commenced in 1989. She has clearly gone through the motions of consultation in putting together this year's budget, some of it, perhaps, in abject panic, just as she did in 1989. But where are the results of this consultation reflected in her budget? I do not see any sign of it.
The budget has failed before it has begun. It addresses only short-term issues - perhaps, as I said before, with an eye to the election - and totally ignores the real and fundamental issues that it should address. It contains no strategy but reflects merely ad hoc solutions to emerging problems. It sets objectives which, even though short-term in nature, will prove to be unachievable. It exhibits a distorted, ideologically-based set of priorities. It does nothing to substantiate the Treasurer's oft asserted concern for the private sector as the generator of jobs and as the growing potential revenue base. It fails the test of social justice.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .