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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 4 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 1096 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

because they have not even mentioned it, there is not really anything of importance to focus on in respect to the operating loss. Mr Stanhope's amazing omission of reference to that is quite extraordinary. So, Mr Speaker, we have a set of fundamental questions to ask ourselves. Given that the Labor Party oppose the revenue measures, do not like the expenditure reductions and do not believe that we can get the growth we have forecast in the budget, how would they pay for the various social objectives which they say they think we should be pursuing?

Mr Stefaniak: Bankcard.

Mr Berry: We will ditch all your scatterbrained schemes, for a start.

MR SPEAKER: Order!

MR HUMPHRIES: For example, how would they pay for the increase in the SACS award that they have trumpeted throughout today's debate? We do not know.

Mr Stefaniak: Bankcard.

MR HUMPHRIES: Bankcard, apparently, would be the favourite method. How would they provide the economic stimulus which Mr Quinlan was so vociferous in urging a few days ago? Presumably, that means that they would spend a lot of money. How would they pay for that? We do not know, because in responding to this budget the Opposition have not told us what they think we should be doing. They have merely told us what we should not be doing.

Mr Speaker, the fundamental question is: How would the ACT Opposition, the alternative government, the people who purport to stand ready to take the reins of power in this Territory, address the operating loss? If we had taken their advice and forgone the expenditure reductions that we have in this budget, and if we had forgone the revenue measures that we have in this budget, we would not have seen anything like the improvement in the operating loss or, for that matter, the attack on the ongoing problem of superannuation liability being incurred which we have seen in this budget. Neither of those things would have been remotely possible. In fact, we would have been increasing the operating loss. What would the Opposition do about that? We do not know because the Opposition have not cared to tell us. Once again I am left without a comprehensive strategy and a clear vision of what they would do. They have not had the basic honesty to say to the people of Canberra, "This is what we would do. This is the approach we would take". In the absence of that, we have nothing to go on but the individual comments made by the Opposition.

Mr Speaker, it is a pity that the Opposition have chosen not to do that because in doing so they have forgone even the advice of their own recently appointed economic adviser, David Hughes from the University of Canberra. He said:

... the many critics who will step forward to voice their disapproval should have the decency to tell us how they would deal with the operating loss.

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