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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2250 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

conservatively, that is an extra $5.6m on housing. We also have calls to spend more money on children's services, more money on family support, more money on mental health, more money on disability services, more money on people from non-English-speaking backgrounds, and more money on youth services. Mr Speaker, do you want me to go on? All the way through there were calls on the Government to spend more money in almost every area.

I have to say there was one area where those opposite said they would spend less. Guess what that was, Mr Speaker. It was business incentive packages. We spend $1.2m on business incentive packages in this coming year, altogether. Remember that this is a budget with an operating result of a loss of $211m. Already those opposite have managed in this debate to suggest, conservatively, an extra $50m worth of expenditure, on my basic calculations here. That is not getting into what they really wanted for children's services. There was more money on capital works, too. We must not forget that - $94.6m was not enough there; we should be spending more. So, Mr Speaker, a minimum of an extra $50m on top of the $211m, and where was their saving? It was on business incentive packages, $1.2m. This year $700,000 has produced $37m in new investment over three years and 700 extra jobs. That is the area where those opposite want us to save money. Mr Speaker, if we got rid of all of it, the whole $1.2m, and gave the $37m worth of new investment and 700 new jobs - that is this year; we expect significantly more next year - a whole miss, they still want nearly $49m worth of new expenditure on top of the $211m projected operating loss. What a joke!

Mr Speaker, on top of the extra expenditure, we have revenue. In a budget, as those opposite should know, there are two sides. You have a revenue side and you have an expenditure side. You potentially have borrowings as well. On the revenue side we have heard those opposite knock back every new tax that has been suggested or every tax increase that has been suggested. Mr Moore suggested a bed tax. I do not agree with a bed tax. I do not think it is appropriate. Those opposite knocked it back. In the case of rates and land tax, they wanted to spend, or they did spend, an extra $315,000 this year on a valuation that was not necessary; but I have heard nothing to indicate that they might raise rates or land taxes above the approach that this Government has taken. I would be happy to hear it, if they wanted to. They have been negative about the road rescue fee. With regard to the debits tax, they extended the concession regime to cost the Government more money. So, Mr Speaker, in the revenue area they have done everything they can to reduce our capacity to raise revenue, spent more money, and reduced revenue.

What is the answer there? The answer is borrowings, Mr Speaker. They have only two options if they go down the path they go on expenditure, and that is to borrow, and give our kids a significant debt in the future, or raise taxes. We have gone on with the debate for three days and they have not come up with one new revenue option. Mr Moore did. I do not agree with it, but at least he did, Mr Speaker. They have not come up with any areas, apart from business incentives, where they think we should spend less money. What they must be suggesting is that the ACT Government go into significant borrowings. I do not believe that that is an appropriate approach. I think our AAA credit rating is enormously important for the future of this city.

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