Page 3235 - Week 10 - Thursday, 16 September 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This lack of courage in the face of unavoidable structural changes is a repeat of what happened last year, except that the impact was less severe because the reduction in Commonwealth funding was only about $13 million, or 3 per cent.
Madam Speaker, what will be the legacy of this budget in five years from now? What is the test of this budget? Is it a budget that will produce lasting benefits for the Territory or is it one that is designed only to limp through to the next election or at least the next budget? I see nothing at all of a lasting or durable kind in this budget.
It is worth bearing in mind that the really hard issues that this budget should have faced up to were spending issues. I quote from the recent Trends publication:
According to the Grants Commission's assessments, the ACT has far greater scope to reduce expenditures, while still providing the average level of services -
that is, average across the country -
than it does to increase revenues, without becoming a high tax jurisdiction. The Grants Commission estimates imply that the ACT could have reduced outlays by $32 million in 1991-92 and still have provided the same standard of services as enjoyed in the States and the Northern Territory on average in that year. That is, relative to the States, the ACT is a high spending jurisdiction. By contrast, there was only scope to raise a further $3 million of revenue in 1991-92 before the rates at which ACT taxes and charges would exceed tax rates in the States and the Northern Territory on average.
Does this budget tackle the question of spending and avoid the question of raising revenue? No, it does not. It massively increases revenue efforts, and that must put us well above the Australian average, or certainly significantly above it; but it does nothing to face up to the question of reining in outlays.
Madam Speaker, cutting teacher numbers, for example, makes no long-term gain, but it does do short-term damage to the quality of classroom teaching in this Territory. Stretching waiting lists in public hospitals does not strengthen the public hospital system; it just makes life miserable for sick people who are waiting for surgery. Sacking 500 public servants does not create long-term benefits. It changes the functions and rationalises the activities of government, but there is no evidence that this Government has actually tried to make that kind of hard decision. As far as this Government is concerned, every service is a sacred cow. Every building is sacred ground. But this leads to the third shibboleth: Every taxpayer is a deep, deep pocket to be targeted. That is a policy, Madam Speaker, designed to limp through to the next election, not to set the Territory on a firm and secure path. I greatly regret that the ACT Government has found itself, and put the Territory, in the position where this should have happened.
Let me look at some of the specifics of this budget - the revenue bite. I want to talk, first of all, about the extraordinary decision on petrol in the ACT. Madam Speaker, the stench of hypocrisy in this place is absolutely overpowering. These petrol pump crusaders across the way have become petrol pump raiders.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .