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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1807 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

came to disclosure and accountability. Perhaps I am being unfair to Mr Kennett: the former Victorian Premier could well have learned a lesson or two from his territory counterparts, it seems to me.

Labor believes that governments are elected to govern. Labor is committed to the notion of responsible government that is embodied in the Westminster system. We understand that the budget is the most important statement a government makes in the years between elections. In government, the Labor Party will accept the responsibility that that imposes to set priorities and to argue its case. We accept that the community, interest groups, peak bodies and other parliamentarians have a right to make submissions to the budget process and we will listen to those submissions, but the Labor Party will discontinue the draft budget process.

The government has forecast a $4.2 million surplus for 2000-01. It is appropriate to ask how it was achieved. Mrs Carnell and Mr Humphries would have us believe that it is down to their expert financial management, despite the fact that in five months the forecast has gone from $2 million to $4 million, but expected revenue has increased by over $70 million. The plain fact of it is that this surplus owes more to favourable external circumstances than it does to the financial management of the Liberal government.

The Chief Minister was at it again yesterday at the Press Club, praising the sheer hard work of a dedicated bunch of public servants who convinced the Grants Commission to give the territory more. She said that it was not an accident or luck that the commission changed the way it calculates its relativities; indeed, it was not. But it also was not through any argument put to the commission by the ACT.

The simple truth of the matter lies in the significant adverse impact the territory suffered in the Howard-induced recession between 1996 and 1998. As a result of that recession, the ACT's capacity to raise revenue fell relative to its capacity in 1993. Because it works on five-year averages, the commission used data from 1994-95 to 1998-99 when it calculated it relativities for 2000-0l, and that led largely to the increased funding.

If Mrs Carnell wants to take some of the credit for the increase, she can; but she has to accept that it was a Liberal-induced recession, not her lobbying, which led to the increase. If she was the prudent financial manager she claims to be, she would recognise the cyclical nature of that circumstance and accept that, as the effects of the recession wash out of the Grants Commission calculations, our relativity is like to fall. It would be prudent to spend the windfall wisely, although again the past record does not augur well.

If there is to be a surplus, it is also appropriate to ask who pays for it. I know the answer to that. This surplus is paid for by the pain and suffering of the 2,800 public servants who have lost their jobs under this government and all of those who were forced out of work and out of Canberra during the recession. It is paid for by the 150 people who will go next year. It is paid for by the 4,200 people on the elective surgery waiting lists and the thousands who have waited longer than clinically desirable. It is paid for by those hit by the cuts to CIT funding. It is paid for by those people who have not been able to get their teeth fixed because the government would not fund the dental health program.

It is paid for by the community organisations whose funds were cut because they disagreed with the government. It is paid for by the disabled and the handicapped who

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