Page 4421 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 19 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Any Territory government has to be very vigilant in fighting for our Territory's rights. I think all governments to date have been a little tardy in relation to that - both Follett Governments and the Alliance Government as well. Any future government is really going to have to take the gloves off and get in there and fight for the ACT, because that is crucial to our funding.
Secondly, because our funding is being reduced, because we are in difficult economic times and because the ACT does not have natural sources of wealth such as some of the other States have, any government has to prioritise, and I do not think that this Government has done a very good job of that. A budget has to be prioritised between the must-haves and the can-haves. There are still quite a few can-haves in this current Follett Government budget, which might have been fine if the Commonwealth was providing fully for the ACT but is simply inappropriate when we are looking after ourselves.
Mr Speaker, when I come to must-haves and can-haves, let me say this: The Government has increased a couple of areas, one in a very minor way. I do not have a problem with that; it is minuscule. That is the area of sport. In fact, I commend them for that because that is basically just in line with a commitment we gave some 12 months ago. But they have a significant increase in housing, and I will come back to that because I think a couple of things could and should be done by future governments to cut costs and ensure that ACT housing is rationalised. Some rationalisation can still occur, despite Federal and State government agreements.
One of the main areas where this Government really has stuffed up in a monumental way is its handling of the police budget, and I will concentrate on that initially. This budget stated that there would be a 2.25 per cent cut in police funding. The Estimates Committee, on Friday, 27 September, I think, quite clearly showed that that in fact was not an across-the-board cut; it was a cut coming from the area of the budget under the control of the ACT. That was the operational budget. Three months into the financial year, it was about $8.5m - normally about $10m for the full financial year - and there was a further $240,000 from the corporate services area of the police budget. The big problem was the cut from the operational budget.
The police are a very responsible body of individuals. Their union is a responsible union. It is a pity some other unions are not quite as responsible. They were prepared to take an across-the-board cut. They did not like it and I think they were quite justified in not liking it, but they were prepared to take it. To some extent, I suppose, that set the ground rules for exactly what could be argued.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .