Page 1956 - Week 06 - Thursday, 8 June 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
follies. For instance, I think a fully funded public dental scheme, childcare, and home-based senior citizen and nursing care would be wonderful, and we should be striving to make them a reality.
The fact that nobody seems happy with a budget is often cited by government as an indication that it is fair. Unfortunately, the burden that falls on the weaker members of our community is severe and will be felt disproportionately to the relatively small cuts that have fallen on the business community, although we can expect its cries to be louder.
I would just like to go back to my original questions. First of all, I asked: whose agenda does this budget follow? I would say that this is a budget for Treasury. On Tuesday night I did ask as many people as I could whether they loved the budget. I did not find anybody who did. However, I did not speak to any Treasury officials. Secondly, is this budget forward looking? Fiscally perhaps, though I am sure that 2008 is the main target of this budget, as with any other. It is absolutely not a forward-looking budget in terms of the environment or our social capital.
Finally, would the opposition have done anything differently? Judging from the conversation I have heard across this room today between Mr Barr for the government and Mr Mulcahy and Mr Seselja, I would say that the opposition would not have done anything particularly different, nor did I hear anything positive or any alternatives coming from Mr Stefaniak’s speech on the budget, which was purely a litany of complaints. We might have been a little bit different as to the details, but what we are looking at here is a budget that is about the economic bottom line but which ignores the social and environmental needs of the Canberra community in the years to come.
MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (4.26): We just heard a fascinating dissertation. Of course, the one profound thing missing from all these great ideas is: how much do they cost? For too long that has been the problem in this territory. People on one side or the other or with a mish-mash of interests secure government and then embark on all manner of wonderful ideas. But, of course, there is not the revenue to match. That is why we are having this discussion this week.
The hallmark of this government has been to spend up big and not worry about the consequences. Now, after having had a look at the financial situation, they have said, “We are in strife. We have got the credit rating agency breathing down our necks. It will have terrible consequences. Let’s make these horrible budget decisions now and hopefully, by the lead-up to October 2008, everyone will have forgotten.” So many governments that have got themselves into strife have worked on that principle, and invariably they have paid the price. Time will tell.
When we look at the track record of the Stanhope Labor government, it is certain that this budget was inevitable. As I have indicated on a number of occasions in the last several days, over the past four years this government has enjoyed a revenue bonanza from land sales, stamp duty and GST, but that has been squandered. As I have pointed out, and will continue to point out, windfall gains in revenue since 2002-03 amounted to $900 million. But none of it was banked.
Mrs Dunne: How much?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .