Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

None . . Page.. 1665 ..

Then she went on, Mr Speaker, to spend $17m in her own next budget, the 1991-92 budget, on redundancies. It does not get any better in this budget speech either, Mr Speaker. Ms Follett says that all these things are bad. I was very surprised not to hear in Ms Horodny's speech some comment about tip fees.

Ms McRae: She made a comment.

MR HUMPHRIES: She did, did she? All right. She praised the tip fee decision, I assume?

Ms McRae: Yes.

MR HUMPHRIES: Good. I will withdraw any inference against Ms Horodny. Mr Speaker, Ms Follett did not have the same courtesy. Ms Follett did not have the courtesy to acknowledge, or the grace to acknowledge, that the decision to impose tip fees is a sound decision in the interests of the ACT economy.

Mr Berry: Especially when you are paying off the business sector.

MR HUMPHRIES: I beg your pardon - the ACT environment. It is a decision in the interests of the ACT environment.

Mr Berry: “ACT economy”, you said, Gary. You cannot withdraw that one, matey.

MR HUMPHRIES: Right, Mr Berry. People across the way know that we throw away far too much in this Territory each year. We are the only community for probably hundreds of miles around which does not impose tip fees and put some disincentive on people to throw rubbish away. We have done that now. Do we get, “Well done; that is a good environmental decision.”? No, we do not. We get, “Oh, this nasty Government is imposing tip fees”. You know that you would have done it if you had had the chance. You did not have the guts to admit in advance that you think it is a good idea. The Opposition says that this Government has already cost, before the budget, $680 per household. I challenge you to table those figures. If you are serious, put them on the table. So much for that policy.

Ms Follett says that there is nothing for young people in the budget. She also says, “We would not have cut the outlays for unemployment programs”. Let me remind Ms Follett that the $1.6m we are spending on programs for the unemployed is precisely the amount that she projected in her own forward estimates for unemployment programs. People should bear in mind that this is not a vicious little government slashing into unemployed people. We have projected the same figures that Ms Follett was projecting, but we have made a decision to stimulate job growth in what we know is the only area where that job growth can occur, in the private sector. There is a $13.5m decision to support private enterprise job growth in this town - $13.5m which we believe will impact most heavily on young people who, up until now, under the previous Government, have not been able to get jobs.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .