Page 4932 - Week 16 - Tuesday, 26 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Why should present ratepayers pay all of the oncosts for infrastructure development for new subdivisions? Borrowing is an accepted parameter in local government activity. But, on that municipal side, the local government side of our activity, the Government sent $3.5m from the Community Development Fund for roads and bridges at Gungahlin. That was revenue which had been pledged by successive governments - Federal governments, Labor governments - from gambling, from the TAB and the other GALA activities. In breach of those pledges, that surplus was sent out for roads and bridges at Gungahlin. It should have been used for community purposes. It was dedicated to that.
MADAM TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Grassby): Mr Collaery, I do not think this is relevant.
MR COLLAERY: Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, this is an appropriation debate. I know that this may present some difficulties for you from the chair; but I assure you that this is entirely relevant, with respect. I am talking about the appropriation of - - -
MADAM TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not think it is, Mr Collaery.
MR COLLAERY: Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, if you wish to step out of the chair, I will argue that with you. If you wish to rule, I will not accept your ruling.
Mr Berry: Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Mr Collaery has seriously reflected upon your competence in the chair, and I think he ought to withdraw the imputation.
MR COLLAERY: Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, I said that if you ruled I would not accept the ruling. It is up to you to rule that my comments in this debate about the appropriation of funds are out of order.
MADAM TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am suggesting that they are not relevant to this debate, and I suggest that you be more relevant to the debate.
MR COLLAERY: I will bear in mind your comments, Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker.
MADAM TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Collaery.
MR COLLAERY: If the Government was going to take that $3.5m out of the community budget, it could have been used for something closer to the people. It could have been used for non-government schools, for that matter. Be that as it may, it has gone out to roads and bridges, and that borrowing was not done. Why? It was because this Government wanted to say, "We did not increase borrowings; we did not do any new borrowing". That was irresponsible. It was an irresponsible way to use funds.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .