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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 4 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 1094 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

Perhaps we will be insulated from external shocks, but I think there are some internal ones which have not been properly factored in - for example, that some of the Federal Government cuts to the public service departments, like Defence, have not yet fully flowed through. When they do they will have a significant impact on the local economy. In short, they will continue to depress growth and we will have to grow above the Government's expectations to reach the high-water mark that it has set. As I say, Mr Speaker, I hope that the Chief Minister is right and that I am simply being pessimistic; but, if she is not, then her whole debt reduction strategy is deeply flawed.

The bulk of the Government's reduction in its consolidated operating loss comes from an increase in revenue, based on the assumption that the Territory is on the brink of a surge in growth. It also comes, I might add, by cranking up taxes and charges. What the Government failed to do in this budget was to attack the operating loss by cutting harder into spending, by picking out programs that we do not need and cutting them altogether rather than trying to trim a little bit off everything. Nobody wants to hear this and I understand that it is extremely hard, but one day someone is going to have to make that hard decision. Unfortunately, here, as with every other State and Territory, every area of spending is surrounded by the high walls and razor wire of special interest groups.

I have been accused of having one sacred cow of my own, police, and I have to say that there is some truth in that. But it is also true to say that the police have borne their share of cutbacks. We have been cutting back on police spending in real terms since the beginning of this decade. Police are an essential service, Mr Speaker; others are not. So where could we cut? I believe that we need to completely review one of the Government's sacred cows, the business incentive scheme, and subject it to a cost-benefit analysis. It is my suspicion that many of these deals cost more than they are worth and I would like to see them publicly tested.

Our failure to attack spending means that we have to push up charges, and I am concerned that some of the new charges fall most heavily on those who can least afford it. To help ease the burden on families, especially those on lower incomes, I would like the Government to consider the possibility of putting in place a system for paying car regos in quarterly instalments without the addition of any administration fees. If we are really becoming a clever and caring capital, I am sure that that type of payment system is possible.

Another thing the Government should consider is the inclusion of those who live on carer pensions in the list of those receiving car rego exemptions. The work of carers goes largely unnoticed and cannot be quantified in simple dollar terms; but it is true to say that carers save the Government millions of dollars each year in health-care costs, and generally they need to have their own car. Single mothers, the disabled and those on age pensions all qualify for the exemption, but those whose responsibility it is to care for the aged at home do not. A carer pension is only $360 a fortnight, which makes a single payment of around $600 a year for car rego each year a huge burden. While a line must be drawn somewhere on those who qualify for exemptions, Mr Speaker, I hope that their omission from this list has been a genuine oversight. Mr Speaker, I have nothing more to say, and I will save a detailed examination of the budget for the Estimates Committee process.

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