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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 7 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 2097 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Ms Tucker asserted that there was growing inequity in our society without advancing any evidence of that fact. It is very easy to make that accusation, Mr Speaker. I do not think you can actually sustain that argument, and no attempt was made to do that.

Finally, the comment was made that we had no regard for community views in the formulation of this budget. I draw to the attention of the house that 38 or so of the new initiatives which were put forward in the budget, and that is over half of them, were recommended either by portfolio committees in this place or by community organisations. Mr Speaker, it is easy in this debate to throw around the charge that you are not listening, you are insensitive and it's a lost opportunity-all the accusations fly around like confetti-but closer examination leaves no substance to them.

Mr Speaker, we are told that the budget has been widely dismissed and widely deprecated, but I have in front of me the editorial from the Canberra Times the day after the budget and that is not the way I read the comments there. Indeed, it is not the way I have read comments from many other people who, in my hearing, have been very complimentary about the budget. Mr Speaker, I leave it at that. There was not much in this debate about the Chief Minister's appropriation directly, but I think I have dealt with what there was.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

Proposed expenditure-part 4-InTACT, $10,640,000 (capital injection), totalling $10,640,000.

MR QUINLAN (8.42): For the record, Mr Speaker, this expenditure proposal incorporates a waiver of $30 million that was hitherto described as "borrowing commitments". I have to congratulate the Treasurer on the part that says that "savings as a result of the write-off of borrowing commitments will be passed on to customers in the form of reduced user charges, offset by increases in service level agreement changes". In other words, no savings will be coming in the form of reduced user charges. They will rise from $54 million this current financial year to about $59 million in the out year of 2004-05. The borrowing charges do not fall much, because they seem to be more impacted on by the financial leases that InTACT has sold. On top of that $30 million there is a further $8 million capital injection going into InTACT.

I mention that only because a couple of years ago, when we were asking about the level of expenditure for InTACT, we were being told, "That's okay. It's up at this level because of modernisation. At a later stage it will normalise and fall back." But it has not; it continues to grow.

It is very difficult for an Assembly such as this to get a sufficient perception and understanding of exactly what is being done to be able to make an assessment of that. All we can do is observe for the record that costs continue to increase; that $30 million worth of loans are now written off-there is a further $8 million capital injection at this point-and that the expenditure line and the user charge line continue to ramp upwards.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.

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