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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 7 Hansard (29 June) . . Page.. 2273 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Having been told to go out and do that and having actually produced the jobs growth at the same time that the federal government was cutting back on employment, why is it that we do not get any credit? We were told by those opposite that unemployment was going to decimate the ACT community. Why do we not get some credit for the good unemployment figures in the ACT? Why do we not get some credit for the positive economic figures in the ACT today?

Again, Mr Deputy Speaker, it does not compute; it just does not add up. It is inconceivable that all of the things we have done-the reductions in expenditure, the employment creating opportunities we have created, the revenue-based measures we have taken-have had no impact on the bottom line. It defies, it beggars, belief.

Mr Quinlan also repeated the old shibboleth that, in his view anyway, the ACT government is misleading people when it suggests that it has contained expenditure increases to below CPI; that, in fact, it has been a profiteer government and has spent much more than it has actually earned. I am not quite sure how we can be in that position and get a surplus budget, but that is another point.

Mr Quinlan seeks to establish that position by quoting the general government sector. Conspicuously, he does not quote the total territory position. The fact is that between 1995-1996 and 2000-2001 total territory expenses have risen by 5 per cent. But the figure for 1995-1996 indexed for inflation over that same period shows a total rise of 6 per cent. So the total territory position is that we have contained expenditure increases below CPI. I am happy to table that material for the quizzically expressioned Mr Quinlan to peruse.

Mr Quinlan: I will have to have a look at that one, Gary. But it's not 2 per cent as the Chief Minister said on national television, is it? It's not the 2 per cent that Ms Carnell said in her delivery at the Press Club, is it?

MR HUMPHRIES: Well, it is fact, I am afraid, Mr Quinlan. Even in the general government sector, where expenses have increased by 12 per cent over that same period, revenue has increased by 41 per cent at the same time.

Again we come back to the line about the ACT being a high taxing regime. The opposition reluctantly admits, "Okay, you guys have bridged the gap somehow but you have done so by increasing taxes. You are now a high taxing jurisdiction and you should be ashamed of yourselves in those circumstances."

Mr Quinlan: We didn't say you were a high taxing jurisdiction. We haven't said that.

MR HUMPHRIES: Well, what are you saying then, Mr Quinlan?

Mr Quinlan: What I am saying is that over 10 years of local government we have in the ACT ramped up our taxes to a normal level. We have had a transition, we had transitional funding, we spent the transitional funding and we have done-

MR HUMPHRIES: And so have other jurisdictions.

Mr Quinlan: All governments have done that.

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