Page 1211 - Week 05 - Tuesday, 11 May 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Of the alternatives, it would seem that the Government will be forced to rely more on borrowing as a strategy to close the budget gap. I am sure that I do not need to warn the Treasurer or the Government about that course of action. I am not opposed to borrowing, let us be clear, and I borrowed for the capital budget when I was Chief Minister. My warning is that any acceptance of borrowing to balance the recurrent budget is totally unacceptable. To borrow to plug the holes in the recurrent budget is to lead this community into penury. This is the road to disaster that has been followed by some other governments in Australia in recent years. Borrowed money has to be repaid, and it is obvious that, if more of our revenue is consumed by loan repayments, less is available for recurrent expenditure activity. If you do not believe me, ask Jeff Kennett. Ms Follett referred during question time to our credit rating. The Government should not be too complacent about the high credit rating we currently enjoy. While we do enjoy a high credit rating, we will not sustain it if we borrow heavily year after year. It was not too many years ago that Australia had a AAA rating, but in the space of a decade that has changed dramatically and, of course, it can happen just as easily here.
One glimmer of hope for the ACT perhaps lies in the possibility that the Premiers Conference might be kind to us. The ACT can approach the States for some consideration of our plight and for generosity in forgoing funds themselves so that the ACT can be more comfortable. However, given the situation in Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, it is unlikely that there will be too much sympathy for the ACT in that forum. The Premiers will be hard pressed to say at home that the people of Canberra were in greater need than those in, say, Melbourne or Adelaide. So we should not rely on them.
Nor should we rely, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, necessarily on the assistance of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth wants to be rid of ACT expenditure as quickly as possible. It is clear that as the years go by the national capital influences and special assistance to the ACT will be rated as being progressively less compelling. That has already started.
Mr Connolly: Unless they take it back.
MR KAINE: Well, maybe. It has already started. For example, ACTION buses will lose special assistance of $8m this year if the recommendations of the Grants Commission are accepted.
I have said many times over the past several years that a financial strategy for the ACT is an essential part of dealing with the budget. Profound strategic questions need to be asked and effective answers found if the ACT is to meet its financial commitments and to prosper. You cannot just stagger from year to year, because you will be on your knees. We are practically on our knees now. We will be further down in a year or two. I am well aware that some of the cynics in this place find my continual comments along these lines to be somewhat reactionary, overly conservative, and not relevant to the ACT. I do not agree. They are very relevant to the ACT and its future. All the indicators show our situation to be worsening, not getting better. Each year the demands for adjustment become greater rather than less, and next year will be no different from this year. I believe that I have been merely restating the obvious, yet it does not appear to be obvious to the Follett Government. Action is required; it is required now.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .