Page 3227 - Week 10 - Thursday, 16 September 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR DE DOMENICO: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think the words "budget revisited" have been mentioned and attested to by my colleagues. I cannot but reiterate that, because when we look three or four years ahead we find that, under the strategies of this Follett Labor Government, we are looking at $200m of borrowings. If you say it quickly it does not sound much. We are looking at $200m worth of borrowings by a government whose Chief Minister said about 12 months ago, "Gee, aren't I good; I do not borrow". In four years' time we are looking at $200m worth of borrowings. That is point No. 1. This year we have $34.4m worth of borrowings anyway, and another $43m is coming out of provisions, says the Chief Minister, because she does not like to use the word "reserves". Call them what you will, provisions or reserves; but the Canberra community is looking this year at $74.4m worth of borrowings.
Mr Connolly: That is nonsense. That is just nonsense.
MR DE DOMENICO: Mr Connolly says that that is nonsense.
Mr Connolly: Borrowings are borrowings. Reserves are not borrowings. You do not have to repay them.
MR DE DOMENICO: And provisions are provisions. Mr Connolly, I am not going to get into semantics. It is ironic that the Trends magazine issued by the Advance Bank not too long ago predicted exactly that same net financing requirement. Let us call it a net financing requirement so that people do not get upset about the words one uses. It predicted a net financing requirement of $74m. Surprise, surprise! When we look at what the Federal Government took away from us this year, what is that figure? Once again - surprise, surprise! - it is about $74m. What a tough decision it was, as Mr Kaine said, for Ms Follett to realise that. She had it there before her for a long time before that.
The other point to be made, as Mr Kaine said, is that people were talking about cutting back on things. Let us have a look at the budget papers again. The total expenditure in this budget is $1,360.7m. If you look at last year's budget and you do your sums, that is a 4 per cent increase; not a reduction, but a 4 per cent increase. Let us have a look at the revenue side. Although our own source revenue increases by $49.7m, an increase of 7.7 per cent, what is the result of all that, Madam Speaker? The result of all that is that expenditure is increasing faster than revenue. If you say that quickly it goes away; but the fact is that, if you look at the budget papers properly, expenditure is increasing faster than revenue. We are spending more than we are earning. Mr Stevenson said it. We have whacked it on Bankcard. For the very first time we are starting to use the old Bankcard provision. That is the result.
On top of that, we are spending more than we are earning, and look at how we are earning our money. There has been an increase in taxes, of course. We have to look back to June, for a start, for increases in rates and all sorts of things that the community have been slugged with, together with the 0.5c a litre increase in the price of fuel from 1 November, which will bring in $1m in the first year. When you look at that together with the Federal Government slug on petrol prices, you wonder, as Mr Moore said, whether this Government is concerned about social justice at all. I am suggesting that it is not.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .