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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 5 Hansard (15 May) . . Page.. 1263 ..

MR SPEAKER: It was still an interjection. I would not acknowledge it if I were you.

MR MOORE: It was a very useful interjection, Mr Speaker, that I have to acknowledge - that Mr Langmore and Senator Reid have put in writing that perhaps this should be reconsidered. I look forward to getting a copy of that letter from Mr Wood, or at least an indication as to where we can find it.

Mr Speaker, those are the sorts of issues that are before us. I welcome Mr Wood's motion in the sense that it supports what the Planning and Environment Committee has been arguing all the way along. We are waiting for the Government's response to the Planning and Environment Committee. I hope that Mr De Domenico will be able to inform us that it is coming, perhaps even this afternoon - who knows? - and that the Government's attitude will be not to use capital works as a way of plugging the hole from blow-outs in the recurrent budget but rather to recognise how important they are for Canberra. Do not just pay lip-service to the need for jobs in Canberra when you have in your hand the wherewithal to do something about increasing the number of jobs.

Mr Osborne has accounted for some 200-odd jobs. Yesterday I asked a question about the gap in the City Services Group budget and whether it also will be funded by bringing money across from the Department of Urban Services. Mrs Carnell's response yesterday was that the urban services budget will come in on target. Of course it can come in on target if capital works is going to be used as a way of filtering money across. If that is how it is going to be used, you have a $100m cushioning effect there. As far as the $1.4 billion is concerned, we give the Chief Minister flexibility to the tune of $12m when we give her the Treasurer's Advance. That is the thinking of the Assembly.

You have to understand that when you are using the capital works budget to fill the hole it is costing Canberra jobs. You cannot, on the one hand, get out there and say, "We want jobs, we want construction; this is what we are on about; we are all after jobs", while at the same time you are effectively cutting down your own construction, cutting down the amount of money going into capital works. That would be what is known as hypocrisy. As Mr Wood has suggested, let us get this capital works budget moving. Let us make sure in future capital works budgets that, if one project is stymied for some reason or other, lower priority works can be brought in. As stated in the committee's report, the suggestion that this process be undertaken was put to our committee by the Master Builders Association. You will find that at paragraph 2.9 of the report members were unanimous in saying that this is a very sensible suggestion. I know that the Chief Minister has publicly stated that she supports it. I would hope that that support would be reiterated here today and that Mr Wood's motion would be agreed to at least in principle.

I draw attention to the fact that Mr Wood has listed programs. He has said "expand the program by the construction of such projects as", so he has left enough room to move. This is not a definitive list. It is not a list that you must adopt. I think that was a very sensible way to word the motion.

Mr Wood: I urge the Government.

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