Page 836 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 16 June 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Micro-economic reform needs to be openly debated and a model presented of the type of society we want to see in the future, before the Government proceeds with any budget reform agenda. Social justice dictates that those less well off in our society are given consideration in the framing of charges and taxes. I therefore support any move to tax indulgence over necessity. Principles of social justice need to be enshrined in every decision, just as financial implications are addressed in every submission to government.
The Government is facing a difficult budget. Just how difficult this has become is evident now that the ALP has tabled its budget strategy. It is important that in the context of that strategy the Government should explore all avenues of reduction of expenditure available to it. My main concern is that in any reductions it is administration that is targeted and not service providers.
I consider the question of borrowings versus taxes as also being a matter of social justice. It is not enough to say, "Cut this service" or "Make that facility less accessible". We need to ask ourselves what type of society we want. Yes, there is a need for services to be delivered efficiently, but the real question is one of service delivery. What is the desired outcome for the passengers of ACTION buses? Is it that the service run at a zero loss, or is it that it provide adequate, low cost and ecologically sustainable transport for the population of Canberra?
Similarly with ACTEW: The Government has brought in higher charges for ACTEW services. From information to hand, ACTEW's electricity operations have supported the provision of sewerage and water to Canberra households. Moves have been made to make the provision of water and sewerage services more cost-effective. All Canberrans need to use electricity to some degree, and while sewerage and water rates are factored into rents it is a hidden cost for a large proportion of the community.
It seems unreasonable to me that while raising revenue we raise costs to those who need assistance most, that is, those living in rental accommodation with no prospect of converting to alternative forms of heating to avoid the high costs of electric room and water heating; neither are they able to change their environment to make their rental homes more energy efficient with insulation or by other means.
Is the function of ACTEW, therefore, to raise revenue for the Government or to provide services which are mandatory for our urban setting? I realise that the Government cannot be asked now to find yet another $19m to supplement the budget if electricity rises are forgone. However, to increase electricity charges twice within 12 months by a total of 8.3 per cent, when the inflation rate for the current year is running at less than 2 per cent, ignores the fact that people in Canberra often have no choice but to use large amounts of electricity in winter. This is especially so for people at the lower income levels. A 1985 survey found that those most disadvantaged by income often spend the largest amount on electricity.
I am pleased that on Thursday of this week the Government will be introducing the Essential Services (Continuity of Supply) Bill, which will go some way to redressing the needs of the socially disadvantaged in our community. The Opposition says that the Government has missed the opportunity to implement
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .