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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (3 May) . . Page.. 1443 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

does that do to the commitments in Tuesday's budget? What does that do to the confidence Canberrans can have that the free bus travel promised by the Liberals will in fact be delivered this time round?

The Treasurer has made much of the government's record of economic management. In response to doubts cast over his growth forecast in the past couple of days, he has boasted about the reliability of government predictions. The government was closer to correct than Access Economics in the boom year of 1999-2000, Mr Humphries said. He has basked in the glory of successive surpluses and used that achievement to boost his government's capacity to manage responsibly.

But Mr Humphries continually refuses to acknowledge the basis of the government's achievements. It is true that the ACT economy has outperformed other jurisdictions in the last couple of years. As Professor Tim Brailsford from the ANU told yesterday's Business Council breakfast, the ACT economy has been an overperformer. But what Mr Humphries and his leader before him have not acknowledged is that the good times have flowed from a series of one-off circumstances: expenditure on the Y2K bug, GST compliance, IT outsourcing, a surge in stamp duty from building sales and the most recent major construction, the National Museum.

Perversely, it results from the hard times delivered to Canberra by John Howard. A significant component of the extra Commonwealth funding recommended by the Grants Commission reflected the territory's reduced revenue-raising capacity following the Howard assault on Canberra. This growth, based on one-off circumstances, cannot be sustained.

But Mr Humphries appears to have put the blinkers on. How firmly are they fastened? Will Mr Humphries' blinkers prevent him from heeding the warning signs in the commentaries from the experts about anticipated growth rates? Will they prevent him from reading today's news-building work in the ACT fell a staggering 26.4 per cent in the December quarter, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics? It is a result the Master Builders Association describes today as terrible. How does Mr Humphries describe it, and how does he translate the impact of such news to his budget bottom line?

Mr Speaker, I said earlier that there was a second point to be drawn from the Canberra Liberals' 1995 campaign launch. This is it: how blatant does an election promise have to be-whether it is made in a campaign launch or as a commitment in an election year budget-before the electorate recognises it for what it is?

The Chief Minister was at some pains on budget day to rebut suggestions that his budget was a mere vote-buying exercise. He denied it, point blank, to the Canberra Times. He denied it on television. He denied it on radio. His minders told journalists they should not write it that way. I think it was Hamlet who thought the "lady doth protest too much", and I think the Chief Minister does too.

Mr Speaker, I smell, everybody here smells and I think the Canberra people smell porkies. The Chief Minister left the lid off the barrel. This budget must rate as a classic in terms of electioneering. Whatever the Chief Minister might say, this is a classic of the genre. This is a textbook example.

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