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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 1975 ..

MR HIRD (continuing):

of the committee, my colleague Mr Rugendyke, dissented from it too. I am sure he will speak to that later.

The next major issue that invites dissent relates to the government's social capital policies. I disagree with the comment that the committee shares concerns that some fundamental issues of equity and community support had been left out of the social capital agenda and strongly dissent from the silly remark that social capital is little more than a glib slogan. These statements have no place in a committee report that is expected to be taken seriously. If members want to play politics, fine, but use another forum, not a committee report.

The fact is that social capital describes the government's commitment to fostering strong relationships between people who know and trust each other and who have shared interests and beliefs. These relationships are generated when people come together in families, at work, in neighbourhoods and in sporting, social, religious and local organisations. The government underpins this commitment in the budget. Social capital is all about fundamentally improving the wellbeing of the community in which we live. To refer to social capital as "glib" is plainly wrong and just political ratbaggery. Indeed, the description is itself glib. I therefore believe that that paragraph should have been deleted.

I would like to comment on the committee's statements in relation to the ACT's superannuation liability and the government's treatment of it. It is extraordinary that the committee notes what the government is going to do about this problem and then, as part of its game, seeks to criticise the government on the ground that this payment in the budget "will be the first payment towards the historical superannuation cost since the Carnell government was elected".

The comment is churlish for failing to put into perspective the substantial progress already made by the government. Moreover, it reflects gross economic ignorance on the part of the committee because it fails to recognise the absurdity of borrowing to pay any amounts greater than the emerging costs of superannuation whenever you are already borrowing to fund a budget deficit. It is only when you have a positive operating result that you can afford to devote funds to reducing that portion of the superannuation liability which is greater than the emerging costs.

The committee selectively ignored the government's eight-year plan to fully fund the superannuation liability. I informed the committee of the details of the plan but, because that favourable scenario did not suit the committee's political agenda, the committee has chosen not to mention it. I therefore dissent from paragraphs 2.28 through to 2.31.

Labor members of the committee were clearly uncomfortable with the trend to private sector employment in the ACT, and well they might be. Since the Carnell government came to office, more than 13,000 jobs have been created. That is right, more than 13,000 jobs have been created over the five years the Carnell government has been in office. Most of the employment growth has been in the private sector.

Today there are over 13,000 businesses in the ACT, employing some 55 per cent of the ACT workforce. Faced with the embarrassment of this compelling evidence, the Labor members of the committee sought to move the goalposts, claiming that it was unreliable

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