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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 2 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 605 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

policies that the ACT has in place. I am optimistic that, given goodwill-the Treasurer spoke about the prevailing goodwill to date yesterday-discussions on these matters and a proper understanding of the nature of the disaster and its consequences, we as a territory will achieve a fair outcome in terms of recoveries.

I would emphasise in this context, however, that care needs to be given to identifying potential sources of recovery of costs. I would suggest that there is some confusion to this point about the potential for recouping costs under the natural disaster relief arrangements. There has been much focus on the application of a formula that prescribes the quantum of funds to which the ACT may be entitled. But there has been virtually no consideration of the provision under which costs associated with "other acts of relief and restoration"might be recovered.

In addition, I believe there are options that can be explored with the New South Wales government, in particular, with respect to collaboration on understanding what happened before, during and after the disaster and on appropriate arrangements for sharing the costs associated with the bushfires. But I remain to be convinced that there is a need for a specific policy response to raise additional revenue to cover the costs of the disaster-that is, a fire tax. But that is a matter that I am sure we will all keep an eye on.

The ACT has experienced the greatest disaster imaginable in recent weeks and we, as a community, are still reeling-and will be for some time-from this event. This appropriation bill is one demonstration of the way in which the community as a whole, in this case through its government, is responding to the disaster.

While the opposition supports this bill, I do have some concerns that the bushfire crisis will become a kind of catch-all clause for unfortunate budget circumstances. As we all know, the December quarterly reports forecast a significant operating loss for this financial year. This was before the fires of 18 January.

As the bushfires cannot be blamed for the downturn in the economy, the Treasurer has returned to his old stand-by, superannuation. However, that excuse is also wearing thin. I understand that Treasury has embarked on a less aggressive superannuation strategy, but the loss in asset value is continuing despite that.

Therefore, it is pretty clear that the Treasurer will need a new scapegoat for his mismanagement of the territory accounts. By hook or by crook, regardless of the NDRA and the Prime Minister's commitment, and regardless of possibly the best insurance policy ever held, I think the bushfires will end up being the economic villain. I thank Mr Quinlan for his advice earlier about being very careful in treading the thin political line. Perhaps he should listen to his own advice about the potential way in which the bushfire crisis is being used-with the economy.

The possibility of a fire levy has again been raised in the Canberra Times today. I put the house on notice that the only reason for a fire levy to be introduced by the government is to cover a budget with a gaping hole in it. That would be a gaping hole caused by the government's mismanagement, not by the fire crisis of January.

The government's attempts to use the bushfire tragedy to cover its economic mismanagement is really beyond the pale. It is exploitation of the worst kind. How can

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