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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 12 Hansard (21 November) . . Page.. 4076 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Reducing the amount we are spending on watering ovals, reducing the amount we are spending on providing for the after-hours duty solicitor scheme, and the list goes on and on. The record shows that almost every one of those expenditure reduction issues has been attacked and opposed by the Labor Party. I say "almost" because I cannot think of any occasion when they have accepted and supported a proposal by this Government to reduce expenditure.

Let us look at the question of raising extra taxes and increasing revenue on the part of the Government. There are a number of initiatives in this budget which do that. One today, for example, was passed with the amendment to the stamp duties and taxes legislation. That was supported, I might point out. That was a fairly unexceptional but very small contribution to the overall solving of the Government problem. This chamber has been replete with examples of the Opposition opposing similar measures proposed by this Government to raise additional revenue.

Mr Whitecross: Where are the examples?

MR HUMPHRIES: This is not in this budget. For example, I am talking about entry fees to nature parks or reserves in the ACT. They were opposed. The idea of charging $30 in our Magistrates Court for those people who commit criminal acts was opposed. Entry fees to Floriade were opposed. I think the record will show that there are very few initiatives this Government has put forward to raise money which this Opposition is prepared to support. Apparently, increasing revenue is out and decreasing expenditure is out.

We have a proposal to divest ourselves of some assets, or at least to make lease-back arrangements for some of those assets. That has, of course, been very strongly attacked by the Opposition. They say that this is borrowing in disguise.

Mr Whitecross: It is.

MR HUMPHRIES: Presumably, you are also saying that in the present circumstances borrowing is out; that we cannot borrow. The question needs to be asked: If we cannot reduce expenditure, if we cannot increase revenue and if we cannot borrow when the Commonwealth is cutting back the ACT's grants, which are a very significant proportion of ACT revenue, we cannot cut education because that has been quarantined - and, of course, we know all the other reasons - and we are facing an economically difficult situation which results in fewer government revenues from ordinary sources, what exactly does this mob opposite say we ought to do?

Mr Moore: Just gild the lily as you do with everything else.

MR HUMPHRIES: Thank you for that enlightened contribution, Mr Moore. I think you should go back to sleep. Mr Speaker, there is not any vision whatsoever on the part of those opposite. When we hear them say, "This measure is wrong; that measure is bad; you are not doing enough for jobs, you are not doing this and you are not doing that", we know that they are being the worst kind of opposition, criticising with no sense of alternatives, no sense of vision, no sense of other solutions to the problems.

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