Page 1794 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 8 June 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We see the sneakiness of the budget where we announce a bus that runs for one year. We announce one year of funding for the seniors pick-up—the $400,000 for only the coming year to pick up bulky waste from seniors. There are these one-year announcements. We know from his own document that he is taking the future savings: the increase in net debt as a percentage of the GSP in 2016-17 is influenced—influenced!—by a decrease in investments to meet forecasts. I would have thought it was “because of” a decrease in investments to meet forecasts, but the document says “influenced by”. The words are subtle and calming, as the Treasurer tries to be.
There is no return to surplus under this Treasurer. He has shown it now in all of his budgets—it just keeps slipping out. If he were genuine about his tax policy he would detail it. He knows what has to happen for conveyances to disappear in entirety. He knows what amount of money has to be transferred across to rates. He knows what that will do to the rates of individual households in this territory. He knows that rates will triple, but he just simply will not tell people the truth in that regard.
Madam Speaker, the annual budget is important. What people should have is some certainty. Mr Rattenbury made the case that, if you travel, you know that Canberra is doing pretty well. Well, I do travel and I am stunned particularly at the number of small country towns that have very limited budgets and look great. I remember going some years ago to Portland on Victoria’s south coast and it was absolutely beautiful in the way that it was presented and maintained. As we drove in my wife and I both said, “Gee, a pity Canberra doesn’t look like this.” So, yes, we do travel. I do look at what other people are doing. I do look at what other jurisdictions are doing. I do look at the value they get for their taxpayers’ dollars, and it is not being matched in the ACT.
Mr Rattenbury said that survey after survey shows that people would pay more rates for a better level of service. That is true; that is well documented. But we are not getting a better level of service for these rate increases, Mr Rattenbury. You are transferring one tax to another. I suspect maybe people thought at the start, “Well, okay, we’ll get some better service out of this.” But we are not getting any better levels of service out of this rate increase. So to state that you suspect Canberrans would be in favour of rate increases for better levels of service is probably true. What they are not doing is getting it from the rate increases that you have voted consistently to enforce since you have been in this place, Mr Rattenbury. I think people will remember that.
It is important that we get this right. It is important that we cease inappropriately increasing the cost burdens on the community. One of the great things in the document—although the government has stymied that as well; they were too honest in the first iteration of the cost of living statement—is that you can see that costs are going up for people.
These inappropriate increases in cost burdens should stop. The government needs to better manage the budget to reduce the costs on the community and the debt burden passed on to future generations. But, as we can see, the government has gone around and done a whip around of all the organisations to find as much funding as it could. That it has taken money from ACTIA is a very interesting move. The technical
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video