Page 647 - Week 03 - Thursday, 15 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
form; that is your history. That is what you did last time you were in government, Mr Stefaniak. When you were last in government, Mr Stefaniak, you had nearly the lowest level of expenditure on mental health in Australia. That is your record.
Mr Stefaniak: The education system—
MR STANHOPE: Mr Stefaniak, of course, wants to talk about his portfolio responsibilities. Let us go to Mr Stefaniak’s record on child protection—appalling, embarrassing. Since coming to government we have increased expenditure on child protection by 174 per cent. We know Mr Stefaniak’s personal form on child protection because he was the responsible minister. So will Mr Stefaniak reduce expenditure on child protection by 174 per cent to take us back to where we were when we inherited government? That is his form. Is that what he will do?
Emergency services are another good example. We have increased expenditure on emergency services by 46 per cent. Mr Mulcahy will support his shadow minister for emergency services, who has said, categorically, that the emergency services levy will be cut. To put this another way, the Liberal Party’s promised revenue cuts amount to 12 per cent of revenue from those sources. They, in fact, provide almost 30 per cent of total government revenue at about the $100 million-plus mark. That is what the Liberal Party has on the table in relation to its continued attacks on these sources of revenue. That is what it has on the table—a proposal to cut 12 per cent of current revenue from each of those sources. A cut of that order is on the table.
I think it is remarkable that the Liberal Party can put weasel words on the table as a matter of public importance. They stand up and attack charges that we have made in the first serious attempt since self-government to reduce very significant overexpenditure of around 20 per cent above the national average on all government service delivery across the board. This has been something that every government since self-government has participated in. There are no peaks and troughs and dips in this.
For 18 years governments across the board have expended at around 20 per cent above the national average on government service delivery. This was initially supported by transitional funding from the commonwealth, and since those transitional years every government has been supported by land sales. This government, my government, one year ago said, “Enough is enough.”
Mr Mulcahy: It took a long time.
MR STANHOPE: Well, the Liberals were in government for seven years and were not game to try it. In order to try and build their surpluses, they cut mental health, they cut disability services, they cut child protection. They did not fund the essential services. They did not provide the infrastructure. They did not go to the issues of most importance to this community. It was this government that did the hard work of building up all of those services. It was this government that did the hard work of getting the budget under control. For the first time ever, it was this government that took the steps that were needed to actually remove our reliance on land sales.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .