Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (29 June) . . Page.. 2220 ..
MS CARNELL (continuing):
We believe very strongly that financial outcomes are not the end in themselves. They are a means to an end. There is no doubt about that. But when the government produced its State of the Territory Report earlier this year, we made it very clear that this is something we will do annually, setting out targets, predominantly social targets, with action statements on how we will be achieving an improvement on action targets.
So right the way through this document, and in a number of areas-whether it be people, the community or the economy-we have identified areas of interest to the community. We have looked at whether we are doing well, what the target should be and what the results were, but then going on in most cases to an action plan on how we will attempt to improve our outcomes in the future.
No other government in Australia is going down this path, or has gone down this path, in reporting on outcomes in the community and setting approaches for the future. We have been willing to say that we need to improve in a number of areas, in many cases setting action plans on how to achieve those improvements. The targets are very clear. The targets are in the State of the Territory Report. The targets are in the purchase agreement. The targets are in Budget Paper No 4, with reporting on last year's targets so that people in this Assembly and in the community can get a feel for whether we have succeeded in targets we set last year.
Ms Tucker raised the difference between the rich and the poor. She indicated that this had somehow got significantly worse under this government. That does not appear to be the case at all. I am sure members were interested to read in the Weekend Australian recently a number of articles with regard to the ACT. I will read into Hansard what one article in the special feature "Advance Australia Where" said:
NSW is the most divided state in terms of income. The most egalitarian is the ACT, followed by Tasmania. But Tasmania's equality is a sign of a rut. The ACT's is something else again.
What will surprise most is that Canberra is the nation's only true middle-class city, a monument to the ideals of old protected Australia. It is a paradox because the rest of us had tarred the capital as the town of the out-of-touch. But the Canberra elite do not match the high-fliers in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane or Perth.
The Australian Taxation Office says that the top ACT postcode declared $52,182 as the average taxable income in 1997-98. It was the bottom that fared better than most, earning $34,319. The national average was $28,258.
This shows very clearly that the difference between the rich and the poor in the ACT is significantly less than is the case in other places. There is absolutely no indication in the ACT that it is getting worse. Why is this so? I believe very strongly that the reason is that this government has continued to spend significantly more on education. Why is the gap between the rich and the poor less in the ACT? It is less, quite simply, because our levels of education are significantly higher, which means that significantly more women in the ACT work, our participation rates are higher and more people are in the work force.
Mr Quinlan: As there has always been.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .