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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 5 Hansard (6 May) . . Page.. 1474 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

In the sense that this is a transparent budget, one that goes the full monty, the budget papers reveal that the Government simply cannot cope with the management of its housing stock. The Government boasts it will simply hand over another 800 dwellings to the community sector, bringing to 1,000 the number of homes now under community management. There are 500 vacant homes now, many of which need maintenance or refurbishment. And the Government will resort to cannibalising its property to fix other run-down stock. It will sell Lachlan Court and use the proceeds to restore Burnie Court.

Mr Speaker, the Government proposes an ambitious agenda for the environment during 1999-2000, given Environment ACT will have to absorb staff cuts of 16 permanent staff over the next two years. In terms of the crucial issues, such as greenhouse gas emissions, it is ironic that the Government is going to spend more on signage on Northbourne Avenue, $500,000, than on a strategy to reduce emissions, $340,000.

Again, the failures of the Government are highlighted by the water usage charge - the packet of fruit tingles - which is to raise $1.7m but is not linked to strategies to improve water quality or management. Rather, it will be paid into general revenue. It is merely a revenue-raising exercise disguised as an environmental safeguard.

The Government has also signalled the market testing of the land management function in the 1999-2000 budget. Market testing is the initial step before a function is contracted out. Will the ideological-driven obsession with privatisation ever stop? Even Adam Smith, the father of privatisation, in The Wealth of Nations, provided for government provision of services such as public parks. In the meantime, the Government will effectively hamstring Planning and Land Management from undertaking its chartered role by cutting staff by 29 full-time positions over the next two years.

Mr Speaker, over the Government's years of office, its strategy for business development has had no depth to it. It revolves around an intertwined complexity of business incentive schemes. This budget simply adds to the plethora of schemes that characterise the Government's strategy for encouraging business and jobs growth in the Territory. Another three-quarters of a million dollars goes towards marketing Canberra as a business destination both interstate and internationally, hopefully with more success than the Feel the Power campaign, which flew kites but could not get a painted plane off the ground.

There is $250,000 to establish an industry development program aimed at small business. That is a small sop to a very critical business sector which this Government has abandoned. The Government must dread the Yellow Pages survey. In its simplistic approach to business development, an approach that revolves around secret incentives based on beaten up claims of benefits to flow to the ACT, the Government stands exposed. There is no vision of anything more sophisticated in this budget.

There is no suggestion that the Government might take the initiative in promoting the economic benefits that must be available from one of the most obvious strengths that the Territory possesses - its vibrant, diverse and well-regarded education sector. Where are the initiatives to engage the sector and others in programs to take advantage of the synergies that can flow from cooperative arrangements between government, business

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