Page 3558 - Week 12 - Thursday, 19 September 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Ms Follett last year bemoaned the fact that at least 400 public sector jobs would go as a result of the budget; yet when she brought down her budget we saw that there were going to be some 520 jobs lost this year. She says, and I agree, that this is a disaster for Canberra at a time when the employment outlook is very, very gloomy. Interestingly enough, I also noticed in this speech of 13 September 1990 that she said that unemployment in Canberra was approximately 5 per cent at the end of June last year. She then went on to quote her Federal Government colleagues and said that the Federal budget - brought down, of course, by what was then the world's greatest Treasurer - predicted that the national figure would be 7 per cent by June 1991. He was only 3 per cent out.
She also asked, and I ask, too, as a result of this budget, what are Canberra's children going to do about a job? The issue of youth unemployment has been raised by both Mr Kaine and Mr Collaery, and it is one of great concern to all of us. There is certainly no help for them from this budget and from this Government. What we need now, I think, more than ever, is a government which is willing to act decisively on economic policy, not one that has shown itself to be incapable of making decisions.
I notice in this budget also that ACTEW has been milked quite efficiently to the tune of some $19m. This is an outrageous imposition on ACTEW. The log was pretty well hollowed out last year, if I remember correctly. To impose a $19m slug on ACTEW this year and at the same time leave them, in effect, with their hands tied behind their back by not going ahead with their corporatisation and thus enabling them to operate on an efficient basis to meet those additional slugs - - -
Mr Connolly: They can operate efficiently without being a corporation.
MR DUBY: They are very efficient; I will not dispute that. But I think there is certainly room for improvement. To impose a $19m slug on ACTEW at this stage means, in effect, that ACTEW almost certainly will become a net borrower as of next year. That is a very dangerous situation for our largest employer to get into. The only way that ACTEW will be able to fund itself, if that rate of attrition is maintained, will be by borrowing. I personally do not look forward to that; I think that is something which should be prevented at all costs.
Mr Moore, you would like to hear this. This is a quote from the speech in which Ms Follett was berating the Government last year. She said, "Is it efficient to corporatise ACTEW?". Well, I think the answer is yes. She also mentioned taking away ministerial control over pricing - a matter which was debated at some length on Tuesday and here today.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .