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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 11 Hansard (26 September) . . Page.. 3472 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

Labor would pursue a strategic approach to the economic challenges facing Canberra. We will always work cooperatively with unions, business, community and interest groups and other interest organisations. Labor would pursue the need for the ACT to be interlinked with the surrounding region. Again, Mrs Carnell has latched onto this idea because the rhetoric sounded good, but we are yet to see tangible outcomes. Canberra must work in partnership with the surrounding towns and build a cooperative relationship to build on each other's strengths.

Labor would not just tell people that "Canberra is open for business". We would show them, through financial responsibility, honesty, certainty and being able to commit and deliver. We would do everything within the power of government to encourage private enterprise to locate in Canberra, to grow and to add value to the Canberra community. A Labor government would be economically responsible and socially just. Labor would not lose sight of the need for balance. Quality service delivery is essential. Labor would not abandon our public servants. Unlike the Liberal Government, we value the public sector. Labor values our natural environment and is committed to preserving it for the future. Labor believes that assisting the vulnerable, advancing access and equity, enhancing growth and jobs, and creating a just and civil society are the ultimate goals. Labor government policies should be focused towards this. There is a way forward. There is an alternative to what we have seen in the budget. The budget is misleading. It is disorganised, lacks direction and presents a piecemeal response to the very real challenge. It is a fraud. Kate Carnell has failed to deliver for the whole Canberra community - failed business, failed the unemployed and failed the true test of economic leadership.

In reflecting on Mrs Carnell's budget, I am reminded of the Greek myth of Pandora's box. The gods sent down to mankind a woman, Pandora, who was superficially attractive but had untrustworthiness in her heart and lies in her mouth. Having won the men's confidence, she released her woes on the world. Perhaps those woes were a shrinking job market, slow growth, a growing budget deficit, unfair new taxes and cuts to essential services. But here the similarity ends. Pandora had one last gift, and that was hope, but Mrs Carnell's budget offers no hope.

MR MOORE (3.25): Mr Speaker, I want to address the Appropriation Bill and this budget. The Chief Minister does not have the politeness to remain, by the look of it; but in question time she raised the general issue of borrowing. She was clearly horrified that one of the choices that she might have to make would be to borrow, and she certainly would not borrow for this budget. The question that I have to ask, Mr Speaker, is, "Are we borrowing, or are we borrowing?".

Let me paint a scenario of an ordinary Canberra family. This ordinary Canberra family are having trouble paying the bills for the food, the heating, the insurance, the school fees and so on. They decide to get more money by increasing the mortgage; so they arrange a loan, using their home as security. Under this scenario, Mr Speaker, money is provided up front to help them pay their bills; but they have to pay it off for years and years to come, and, of course, with that come lots of interest payments. Mr Speaker, compare this family to a government which does not have enough money to pay its ordinary living bills,

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