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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 7 Hansard (18 June) . . Page.. 1838 ..

MRS CARNELL (Chief Minister) (4.23), in reply: Mr Speaker, I am very interested and very disappointed in the comments that Mr Whitecross made. I made no attempt to justify or to defend the Federal coalition's approach to the budget cuts that they put on the ACT. I think I was very factual about what they did and why they did it. Certainly, the "why" is very real. The budget problems that they have are extremely real; there is no doubt about that. For anybody from any party in this place to hop up and down and say that any Federal government has shown any particular benevolence to the ACT since self-government is a joke. The fact is that our general purpose funding from the Federal Government has been reduced by 49 per cent since self-government, all under Labor governments.

Federal governments seem to have very little time to worry too much about the future direction of the ACT, which really means that in debates like this, and many other debates we have in this place, we should be looking at solutions rather than trying to determine whom to blame. The fact is that Federal governments, whether the previous Labor Government or the current coalition Government, seem very unwilling to listen to the problems that the ACT has. Many of the problems were inherited with self-government. The health system and the education system are substantially more expensive to run, with absolutely no undertaking or understanding from the Commonwealth Grants Commission or, for that matter, the Federal Government. The Commonwealth Grants Commission's view on funding retention rates in our school system is not a new problem. It has been with us since self-government.

I think it is unfortunate that Mr Whitecross should take the approach that he did in his speech. We are in an extremely serious situation, and I think I made that very clear. It is going to be extraordinarily difficult for my Government to bring in its budgets over the next two years; but, interestingly, if anybody is ever silly enough to elect those opposite it will be similarly difficult for them to do so. We really must be looking at approaches that are in the interests of the community rather than in the interests of short-term political point-scoring. Members opposite may say that the coalition Government is somehow worse than the previous Labor Government, but the fact is that both have been pretty rotten. The Federal Labor Government had reduced funding to the ACT by some 50 per cent since self-government and it seems that that approach is going to be continued by the current Government.

Mr Speaker, Mr Whitecross made some comments about the real per capita guarantee. Again I accept that Mr Whitecross has not been in this place for very long and obviously does not have any background in this area. On that basis, it is probably a good idea that he speak to Ms Follett prior to making statements in this area. The real per capita guarantee was first agreed in 1994, not in 1995. The then Labor Government agreed with the States that this would be an absolute commitment - "Cross our hearts and hope to die", said the Federal Labor Government - if the States were willing to give up the specific capital grants, which were part of our funding formula at that stage. The States and Territories, with a degree of concern - and Ms Follett was Chief Minister at that stage, so she could have told you - agreed even though I think it meant some $30m or so to the ACT. There were some swings and roundabouts there.

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