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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 5 Hansard (5 May) . . Page.. 1408 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

Mr Speaker, I think there has been a fair amount of hypocrisy in this debate already. Today we have been debating, yet again, the Bruce Stadium issue. Yes, you would say, "What has this got in common?". Well, I have to say, within certain parameters at least, a certain level of hypocrisy. Those opposite have said time and time again that, shock, horror, the Government has spent money that it has not appropriated, has not put through this Assembly in black and white. Well, I have to tell you, by passing this legislation today, that is exactly what we are going to do in this place - spend unappropriated money, and a lot of it.

Mr Berry: It is hypothecated money.

MS CARNELL: I know Mr Berry thinks that does not matter, but he thought it mattered an awful lot when it came to Bruce, even though the money that we have spent and will be funded by private sector financing is all out there on the public record. Mr Speaker, here, is it out there on the public record? By passing this legislation we have just spent $300,000-plus in our capital works budget that has not been appropriated. That is what this 0.2 per cent costs us, the Government - $300,000 or possibly $500,000 in this coming year's budget that is not in the budget. Now, Mr Speaker, that is fine. Mr Berry would probably say, "Then don't spend it", because you would not spend money you do not appropriate, would you? Heaven help us if we do that. Okay, we will not do that. We will not spend money we have not appropriated, so what will we do? We cut out a program worth $300,000 to $500,000.

In this year's budget, the one that is on the table now, the one that has gone through the capital works process in this Assembly, the one that people have looked at and approved, Mr Speaker, we can get rid of the playground safety program for $500,000. Let us get rid of it because we cannot spend the money because this Bill costs us 0.2 per cent more than we have in the budget. End of deal. Now, we can still spend it unappropriated, if that is what Mr Berry thinks; but he does not. We do not either because, in reality, you do not spend more than the capital works program.

What else do we have? We have stage two of the refurbishment of Kippax, $550,000. We have the Civic Square redevelopment, some of that, $550,000. Look, there are some really good programs here we could get rid of. We could get rid of the Lanyon neighbourhood youth centre. John is over there. That is fine.

Mr Moore: Mr Osborne is right out there.

MS CARNELL: Paul Osborne is out there. Mr Hargreaves is obviously in favour of getting rid of the Lanyon neighbourhood and youth centre. That is $780,000. So $500,000 goes. The district park upgrade, $500,000. What about the Palmerston community hall, Mr Corbell? We could get rid of that. That is $500,000.

Look, this is not a joke. The reality is that this Bill - please read my lips - costs 0.2 per cent more on top of the programs that we already have, 0.2 per cent more than we have appropriated for capital works. This is actually the effect it has all the way through the industry, but just look for the moment at what it does to the Government's capital works program. It means we are up to half a million dollars short on the program we have on the table. So what do we do?

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