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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 2 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 458 ..

MR RUGENDYKE

The one positive outcome from the recent ACTEW debate was the recognition of key problems with the ACT's financial position. The sale of ACTEW was hoisted up as a neat answer - the only way to save our children from inheriting major debt. During the ACTEW debate, a lot was made of that horrendous debt that we would be leaving to future generations. But then I sat back and wondered just what we are supposed to leave for the future. I came to the conclusion that we should leave a balanced mix of assets and liabilities so that future governments can determine their own destinies. If we sell all the assets, then we leave nothing but liabilities, and we all know that governments are notoriously poor financial managers. One of my biggest fears in considering the defeated ACTEW sale was that the safeguards were not in place to preserve the funds. What if ACTEW had been sold and gradually the debt crept up again? How would our children deal with the debt then?

The underlying problem, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that we are living above our means. The forecast this financial year is $149m. The aim is to get this down to $92m in this budget and progressively down to zero by the middle of the next decade. That is an admirable goal, but the failure to sell ACTEW does not mean that this budget must do what the sale of ACTEW was expected to do. Taking measures to reduce the operating loss is the right direction, but you do have to look at how Ms Carnell's Government has gone about getting it down this far. For example, extraordinary sales such as the streetlights and the Magistrates Court building have propped up previous budgets. Where does she go when she runs out of things to sell?

I see my role in this Assembly as that of a watchdog. Under the present rules, the Government governs. But when the Government tries an outrageous proposal such as the sale of ACTEW, I am there to keep them in check on behalf of the community. I believe that I fulfilled this role in the ACTEW debate, and I will continue to fulfil the role. I have no allegiance to either the Government or the Opposition. I am the Independent member for Ginninderra, and the only allegiance I have is to the people of Belconnen. I am all for responsible financial management. That is the duty of any government. But, when governments become absorbed with figures and outputs, sometimes they can lose perspective of what we are here for. Economic rationalists can become obsessed with AAA ratings and lose sight of the fact that it is all about people. I am here as a voice for the people of my electorate.

Mr Deputy Speaker, in last year's budget I had a number of misgivings; for example, about the decision to increase motor vehicle registration on family cars by $114 a year. Families were also hit with a rise in house insurance as a flow-on effect from the emergency services levy. Flexibility in the budget process would have allowed us to consider sharing the burden with other areas. There are selected areas in which the Government has major decisions to make in relation to administration and direction which will impact heavily on our capacity to spend.

Let us look, for example, at law and order. Where are the Australian Federal Police heading and what style of police service do people want in the ACT? Do they want community policing, zero tolerance? The direction of policing in the ACT is quickly

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