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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (9 April) . . Page.. 803 ..

MR STEFANIAK (Minister for Education and Training) (4.22): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I rise to support the comments made by my colleagues Mrs Littlewood, Mr Humphries and Mr Moore. This is a vital issue of public importance. Going around during that first Assembly election, the most difficult question people asked was: Why do we need it and how are we possibly going to be better off because of it? One of the main things they highlighted was: How are we going to be financially any better off? Surely, this is going to cost us. That was a very difficult and very proper question that people put. Quite clearly, the Federal Government had a responsibility when it gave this Territory self-government not only to let the Territory govern - and that means let the Territory pass its own legislation and not have things like the Andrews Bill interrupt and affect that process - but also to ensure that adequate funding was given to the Territory, adequate funding was given to recognise the Commonwealth role Canberra plays and the role of national institutions. I do not think that funding is adequate. We saw the Territory get about $500m in untied grants in 1989. That has now dropped to about $280m a year. Thankfully, that is going to come to an end shortly, and with CPI it will rise. However, on any conservative estimate, we have been diddled. I would estimate that we have been diddled to the tune of about $100m a year. The $280m we now get is effectively a 50 per cent reduction in real terms, because we were getting $500m or thereabouts in 1989. That is point No. 1.

My colleague Mr Humphries referred to a very good article in the Canberra Times last weekend which highlighted the inadequacies of the Federal infrastructure and the funding that has been given to the Territory in terms of maintaining that infrastructure. Five or six weeks ago I saw some startling percentage figures that I had not seen before. I do not have them in front of me, so this is just my recollection. In terms of percentage funding per head of population, the little old ACT was like New South Wales and Victoria. We were about 0.88 or 0.89 per cent per person. The Northern Territory was around 5 per cent, or about five times more than we get per head of population here. I know they have distance problems and I know they have other specific problems, but the ACT does not have some of the advantages of that Territory or other States in the Commonwealth.

We do not have any mineral wealth. We do not have manufacturing industries. We have a limited amount of industry. We rely very much on innovation and people and also the tourism industry. We do not have the same basic business base that some of the other States have and that the Northern Territory has, and there are significant disadvantages there that the Federal Parliament has not recognised at all. There are some severe financial problems imposed on the Territory by Federal governments of all political persuasions, and it is something that has bugged ACT governments of any political persuasion since 1989.

The Opposition keep referring to our being in a recession. I think we have been in a recession for quite some time. My colleague Mr Humphries mentioned such things as youth unemployment, which is very much a Federal issue as well as being of concern to us locally. I can recall during the 1993 Federal election, when I was a candidate, youth unemployment regularly being around 50 per cent. I hope someone from the Opposition does speak on this matter. This Government is not afraid to criticise its Federal counterpart, even though we are of the same political persuasion.

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