Page 2050 - Week 07 - Thursday, 17 June 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
If you have funds to spend that will save you from borrowing, then I think that is a very good thing to do. Mr Kaine, on the other hand, borrowed $85.6m. So obviously he does not agree with the modest borrowing approach. Madam Speaker, the remainder of that $53m was actually used for restructuring projects.
In the 1991-92 budget the use of reserves was limited to $30m, not the $80m that Mr Kaine claimed and not the $53m that he spoke about today. It was actually $30m. Of that $30m, $25m was used to retire debt. I think retiring debt is an eminently sensible use of reserves, because it saves debt servicing costs in future years. When you have that money available, it makes sense to me to protect future budgets and protect the community in future years from a high debt liability. Madam Speaker, the remaining $5m of that $30m came out of the Community Development Fund reserves and was used to fund some community assets. But, again, those reserves, that $30m, had nothing to do with Mr Kaine's budget. I think that he has made a claim that really cannot be justified.
Madam Speaker, Mr Kaine also mentioned the community consultation process. I would like to say to members that the bodies I have so far consulted in a formal fashion include the Canberra Business Council, the Trades and Labour Council and the ACT Council of Social Service. The Canberra Chamber of Commerce has made a submission to me. They did not feel that they needed a meeting, although they were invited to have one. I have consulted the Economic Priorities Advisory Council of the ACT and so on. These consultations will continue. Madam Speaker, in the majority of the discussions that I have had so far, the parties to those discussions have acknowledged that their ideas have been taken up in budgets. They have acknowledged that and they are grateful for it.
I think that Liberal members opposite really should try to put together a coherent line on budget matters. I would suggest that Mr Kaine take that line, because it gets very confusing for people when we see Mrs Carnell on television talking about the health budget and saying, "All it takes is money". What a brilliant statement! Madam Speaker, according to Mrs Carnell, all it takes is money. This is from the current Leader of the Opposition - and I use that term advisedly, too. This is her approach to budgeting in the future. I think she threw in a bid for more staff as well - doctors, anyway. Madam Speaker, I just do not believe that that is a responsible or credible approach to the ACT's budget position, and I suggest that she leave it to Mr Kaine.
Madam Speaker, Ms Szuty raised a couple of issues to do, first of all, with savings in lower order priorities. That is certainly a matter which Ministers are giving attention to at the moment, but it is a hard task to ask Ministers to identify what they might call a lower order priority. Nevertheless, that scrutiny is going on at the moment. Ms Szuty also asked a question about incentives for payment of land tax in a lump sum. At the moment, as I am sure Ms Szuty knows, the only incentive is that you do not incur the surcharge that you do incur if you pay by instalments. The reason for that is that the land tax becomes payable or becomes a liability at a particular date. For most of your other taxes - your income tax and all that sort of thing - you pay when it is due. There is no question about it. You pay it on the day it is due. Therefore, it is a considerable concession to allow people a period of time over which to pay this tax for which they are liable.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .