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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (3 May) . . Page.. 1442 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

It was, of course, the election that was to see her return as Chief Minister for a term and a half until the gloss wore off and the can-do culture caught up.

The 1995 election, said Mrs Carnell, was an election that would be fought on issues, not personalities. The Canberra Liberals would not play a game in which there was no strategy, no vision and no direction. The Canberra Liberals would not promise what they could not deliver, she said. She promptly promised to give Canberra 1,000 public hospital beds by the end of the decade, to cut elective surgery waiting lists by 900 patients to 3,600 in her first term, to establish a long-stay convalescent unit at Bruce and, of course, to provide free school bus travel. And they would not promise what they could not deliver!

Mr Speaker, in January 2001, there were just over 600 public hospital beds in Canberra. The elective surgery waiting list stood at nearly 3,900, just under 4,000, not counting an unknown excess of Canberra Hospital patients passed to Calvary, and the government has finally decided to look at the convalescent issue and an all-zone school bus ticket for one term costing $99.

The Canberra Liberals delivered none of these key promises of 1995. The first two have just dropped off, but on Tuesday, the spectre of the former Chief Minister hanging large over him, the Chief Minister and Treasurer resurrected the school bus travel promise.

Mr Speaker, I dwell on the promises of the Canberra Liberals in 1995 to make two points. The first is: what is the difference between an election campaign promise and a budget commitment in an election year? Can the people of Canberra have any confidence that the commitments made in yesterday's budget will be honoured by the same mob that said they would not promise what they could not deliver? Remember, the promises of 1995 were made without qualification. There were none of the excuses we heard yesterday from Mr Humphries when he was questioned about the failure to deliver on the school bus promise until a month out from this year's election. There was nothing about having to get the economic conditions right. There was nothing about it possibly taking six years. What we were told was: "We will not promise what we cannot deliver." Will Mr Humphries be able to deliver on Tuesday's commitments?

Mr Speaker, this budget is predicated on growth forecasts that even the Chief Minister and Treasurer concedes are optimistic. The budget proposes a final growth in gross state product in 2000-01 of 4.25 per cent, written down from the previous 4.9 per cent in recognition of the downturn in Australian economic conditions.

It forecasts growth in 2001-02 of 4.6 per cent and an average of 4.4 per cent in the outyears. Yet in its most recent five-year business outlook, released three weeks ago, Access Economics forecast a growth rate of only 1.3 per cent for the ACT for 2000-01 and 2.7 per cent in 2001-02. So in 2001-02 Access Economics predicts a growth of less than 60 per cent of that forecast by the government. This is in an environment in which the national GDP growth in the December quarter was negative and the International Monetary Fund is forecasting that GDP growth will be only 1.9 per cent this year.

Even the Treasurer admitted at yesterday's Business Council budget breakfast that his growth forecasts were on the optimistic side and that, if push came to shove and the figures looked like they would slide, some spending might have to be shelved. What

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