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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 2 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 395 ..

MS CARNELL

Mr Speaker, I come back to the forecast general government sector operating loss of $90m for 1999-2000. That translates to $291 for every ACT resident, or $783 per household. In other words, we are spending $291 more, on average, on every ACT resident than we receive in revenue, or $783 more per household. That is the budget gap reduced to an individual level, Mr Speaker. There are very few Canberrans, I believe, who would volunteer to pay an extra $291 per year into the ACT Government's coffers, and probably even fewer who would happily see their education, health or other government services reduced by the same amount. If we sent out a bill for $783 to every household tomorrow - because that is what it is costing more than they are paying - what do we think the reaction would be? Well, I have to say, Mr Speaker, that it would not be positive. Yet almost every Canberran would agree that it is not right for the ACT Government to be spending significantly more than it raises, and it is certainly not sustainable in the long run.

Accommodating these conflicting expectations - prudent financial management on the one hand and maintaining government services without harsh taxes on the other - is the challenge facing the ACT Government and every Assembly member. Remember, Mr Speaker, that it was this Assembly that said that it wanted more input into the budget process. It was this Assembly that over the last 10 months has regularly wanted to debate and strongly suggest, if not direct, to the Government that we should not do things like close preschools with 12 children in them; that we should not change bus networks; that we should not put up fees and charges for various things; that we should not have an insurance levy - all things that in most cases have produced more revenue and in some cases have reduced expenditure. Mr Speaker, I cannot remember one initiative, either expenditure reduction or revenue raising, that those opposite have supported - not one.

Mr Speaker, I have spoken a bit today already about the $90m projected operating loss for the budget that we will be discussing today, the 1999-2000 budget. I have heard some simplistic comments: "Well, $90m. You could take off the Commonwealth Grants Commission money. You are home and hosed. No problems". Mr Speaker, it would be really great if members would listen to this, because I think this debate today is important.

I would like to run through the significant budget pressures on that $90m that exist right now. As I said earlier in this debate, Mr Speaker, achieving the $90m, certainly without the Commonwealth Grants Commission money, was looking pretty close to impossible without absolutely dramatic changes in expenditure or revenue. Right now, in terms of budget pressure - pressure on that $90m in the forward estimates - we know in health that our population is ageing and that demand is increasing for high-cost services. For example, there is an acute demand for services for the disabled, requiring, in our view, an additional $2m per annum. Mr Speaker, that is for people out there with disabilities right this minute who need services. Certainly, that is unmet need. Some of those people have some level of service, but there is no doubt that there are gaps. Mr Speaker, there is a major growth in demand across all clinical services groups for day-only services. It comes at a cost.

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