Page 2075 - Week 07 - Thursday, 16 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, I have briefly outlined the major differences between my alternative budget and that of the Government. My budget strategy is one of reform. It takes the important decisions that we have all talked about. It sets a new direction. It is part of our strategy to arrest the slide into debt, to go for growth and to provide employment for young Canberrans who want to stay here. It stands in stark contrast to the Follett Government's do nothing budget. Our programs have been carefully costed. They have been through a rigorous process of development since the last ACT budget, and most have been constantly refined. The principles are clear and established; but, like all good managers, we maintain an open mind on ways of doing things better.
The theme of my alternative budget is sound management. We have a three-year strategy. The programs are innovative, but we have been assiduous in balancing the books. By making major reforms to activities which are presently bleeding the public sector dry, we have been able to make $70m worth of savings compared with the Government's estimates. However, because of the need to make up for the neglect of Labor in health, policing, arts and culture, business costs and promotion of the ACT, we plan to spend $30m more than the Government in these areas. Expenditure is being targeted carefully to points of greatest need and greatest long-term return to the community. The main objective of our programs is to improve the quality of life for all Canberrans; in particular, to care for those in need and to establish an environment favourable to investment and growth. The two go together - something that the Follett Government does not understand. With a disciplined approach to management we can achieve in three years' time a bottom line which, in constant 1994-95 prices, is $97m ahead of the Government's. By 1997-98 our public sector financing requirement is projected to be $10m; but, as a result of its accumulating debt, the Government expects to be burdened with having to find a crippling $107m. In a nutshell, that outcome sums up the difference between good and bad management.
The Follett Government's no decision budget is simply not good enough. It does nothing to overcome the reason for the ACT's decline. The budget summary I have presented this afternoon is realistic, and I stress the word "realistic", and is a far more preferable alternative than the Follett Government's no decision approach. I commend it to the Assembly and the people of Canberra, and I urge people to look at the differences. I am very upset that the Chief Minister is not here. I would like to conclude by saying how disappointed I am that the Chief Minister felt a need to send a Treasury official to my embargoed press conference this afternoon. That was unacceptable behaviour and it certainly shows how worried the Chief Minister must be and how little confidence she has in her budget.
MS SZUTY (3.32): As I have done in speaking to the last two budgets of the ACT Labor Government, I will take this opportunity to preface my remarks on the 1994-95 budget by restating the commitment to stable government that I gave to the Canberra community at the last election. This commitment was that I would guarantee stable government in a balance of power situation by guaranteeing support for the Chief Minister in a no-confidence motion, and guaranteeing passage of the supply and appropriation Bills.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .