Page 3222 - Week 10 - Thursday, 16 September 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MRS CARNELL (Leader of the Opposition): I wish to make a statement under standing order 47. Earlier on the Chief Minister, in an explanation, suggested that I was wrong in comments about the diesel fuel exemption scheme. I thought it appropriate to read into the record an explanation from page 3 of her press release, and I will read it directly. It states:
Changes to the diesel fuel exemption scheme. To ensure that only those in genuine need benefit from this scheme the Government will be introducing into the Legislative Assembly legislation to make diesel fuel used for home heating and other off road uses subject to franchise fees from 1 November 1993. Diesel fuel used for home heating by holders of Health Care Cards and Pensioner Health Benefit Cards will remain exempt.
Therefore, diesel fuel used for home heating will become approximately 7c more expensive from 1 November.
MS SZUTY (4.19): I took the opportunity last year, and I will do so again this year, to preface my remarks on the ACT Labor Government's budget by restating the commitment to stable government that I have given the Canberra community. That commitment stated that I would "guarantee stable government (in a balance of power situation) by guaranteeing support for the Chief Minister in a no-confidence motion and guaranteeing passage of the Supply and Appropriation Bills".
The Chief Minister, Ms Follett, has reminded the Assembly that this year's budget is part of a three-year budget strategy. The continuation of that strategy predominantly hinges on a further 2 per cent reduction in expenditure expected to be found by most government agencies. However, in many respects this year's budget has had to be framed according to the extraordinary circumstances that the ACT finds itself in as a result of the harsh treatment that the ACT has received from the Commonwealth Government in terms of our resource allocations. There is no doubt that the ACT was treated harshly in that we have suffered a greater reduction in revenue levels in both absolute and per capita terms than has been forced upon any other State or the Northern Territory. This is to say nothing about the appropriate resourcing levels for a Territory which has been self-governing since 1989. The Northern Territory experience has certainly been very different.
It is interesting to compare the treatment of the ACT by the Commonwealth with the treatment of the so-called rust belt States of Victoria and South Australia after their finances were crippled by massive debt problems. It seems as though the Federal Government has rewarded them for their poor financial management at the expense of the ACT which has managed its finances well. Indeed, it seems that when States get into difficulties in managing their finances the Commonwealth Government takes a helpful approach. However, if you are the ACT and have been fiscally responsible, you get your funding cut. I believe that the ACT Government has responded to this situation in a measured way, borrowing funds to assist in meeting the immediate shortfall. The alternative would have been unacceptable levels of increases in taxes and charges, and even greater expenditure reductions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .