Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 2 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 445 ..
MR QUINLAN
(continuing):the annual salary level of people here and elsewhere who are attending upon the Executive at any given question time, or just wander into estimates and see how many support people turn up.
A quick look at the budget shows $21m in policy advice for five Ministers. Have a thumb through the departments. There is $21m worth of policy development. Add to that personal staff and departmental staff who bear other titles. You have a fairly substantial level of support for this Executive. Give us half the $21m and next year we might get into this exercise at a far greater level. That is one of my firm suggestions. Split $10m amongst non-government Assembly members and we will come and help knock the budget together.
Mr Kaine: One million will do me, Ted.
MR QUINLAN: One mil. Right. Nine to go. We realise there are no silver bullets. We are talking about sensible management. We are also talking about cutting the punting that this Government happens to indulge in from time to time. In cost savings, we can list the standouts. You have probably heard these before today and you will hear them again, no doubt, during the debate. There is Michael Moore, the $10m man; Feel the Power, a second-hand discredited slogan that bombed; the Bruce Stadium overruns - that is not over yet; your outdoor futsal eyesore and slab for an indoor sport; the Woodies tennis. I like this one: The write-off of $8,500 worth of fees for FAI on the Waldorf apartments, round about the time that FAI gave the Chief Minister's re-election fund $9,500. If they can afford nine-and-a-half grand as a campaign donation, surely they can pay their fees for registering a change of purpose for a building. And, of course, there are the Kinlyside legal costs. They were purported to be reusable. What a crock.
The ALP in government would apply progressive taxes that apply to each according to capacity to pay. You have to make sure that your initiatives do not have too great a social cost. If the Government is to cut it must cut wisely. My challenge to the Government is to deliver a budget which does not hurt the people who cannot afford it. As I said, if you think FAI needs an $8,500 tax break, I would seriously recommend that you revisit the drawing board and rework your priorities.
In relation to borrowing, we believe that borrowing should not be undertaken to fund recurrent expenditure. We believe in direct borrowings only. Other accounting forms of borrowing, such as sale and leaseback, have been used by this Government but have been discredited. We do endorse the repatriation of capital to fund superannuation. It makes sense to utilise the financial strength of an asset like ACTEW to finance a liability, but there is no sense in making ACTEW borrow to fund budgetary shortfalls.
In terms of the social and economic criteria against which the financial strategy ought to be examined, the ALP has a well-developed platform. I think the Government has quoted from it from time to time when it suited it. Amongst its objectives it incorporates equity, equality, participation and access. It states:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .