Page 1443 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 11 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (4.40): Up to a point, I am happy to support Mr Lamont's comments in connection with this report, particularly his comments about the way it was put together by the members of the committee. I do not think we had a single fight, actually. I also compliment the committee clerk on his work.
There are some other aspects of this report, however, that I think are deserving of comment. The first is to note that the capital works program is merely a part of the budget for the year 1992-93, and all of the expenditure planned here will reflect in the budget when the Government brings it down shortly. The Government a few months ago announced that it would bring forward some capital works projects from this year and next year into last year as part of their program to maintain employment. I think it was claimed that it would generate employment, but I doubt that it did. In the event, it probably merely maintained the work force that was then in place. It was probably going over the top a bit for the Government to claim that it was creating new jobs by bringing those projects forward.
When you bring forward significant dollar value projects and maintain a level of capital works that was previously unplanned, it has its effects on subsequent years' capital works programs. I imagine that what the Government is attempting to do here is to maintain its capital works program at a level consistent with that which was generated last year. If it does not, there will be a loss of jobs, and in today's world it is, I believe, a responsibility of government to use its capital works program at least to ensure maintenance of the existing work force, if not to enhance it. This has to be seen in the context of the maintenance or perhaps the expansion of the work force. In that respect, the recommendation from the committee that the Government should consider an additional $15m worth of expenditure in the capital works program is something the Government needs to take account of. I know that the Government has a real budgetary problem. They started off with a $70m-plus budget gap, which they are trying desperately to fill. We will be waiting with great interest to see how they do that.
It must therefore be very difficult for them to accept that this committee is recommending that they should spend another $15m, which is $15m they have to get from somewhere. The traditional source of money for capital works, of course, is borrowing. Dr Tomlinson from ACTCOSS will probably be quite uncomfortable with the fact that he and I are on the same side on this issue. I say what he has already said publicly: The Government should consider additional - and I insert the word "prudent" - borrowing to enhance the capital works program, with the specific objective of making a contribution to the employment situation in the ACT. That is something the Government has to give very serious consideration to. I do not know how much they are planning to borrow. I could put a figure on it, but I will not. Prudent additional borrowing to enhance the capital works program with employment in mind is not something the Government can lightly shrug off in today's world.
In that connection, there is a recommendation that the ACT Government should put some pressure on the Commonwealth to get one or more of the projects started that they have been talking about for years. At the top of that list is the Museum of Australia. There is the refurbishment of the old Parliament House and its conversion to some practical and productive purpose. There are others:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .