Page 2183 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 2 August 2022
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
are other improvements to the Assembly process, let us hear about it. But I think Ms Lee is proposing something quite different. When it comes to the transparency side of the equation, I think that the Assembly is well empowered to do that.
There is, of course, all of the external scrutiny that goes on—the stakeholder groups, the industry representative groups and the media commentary. Access Economics will probably provide a commentary; there will be the analysis at the Canberra Business Chamber’s annual lunch. All of these things take place. So when it comes to transparency and scrutiny, a range of mechanisms already exist.
As I listened to Ms Lee’s remarks today—and the Treasurer picked up on this in a slightly different way to what I was thinking about, but I think there is a similar point—it became clear to me, and the text of the motion goes to this as well, that Ms Lee is actually saying that she wants the audit to identify different policy decisions. At the end of the day, that is what a budget is about—it is a series of policy decisions and prioritisations about how resources are allocated.
Having listened to Ms Lee’s remarks and having read her proposed motion, I was reminded of Mr Coe’s efforts at the last ACT election, and what I considered at the time to be a degree of magic pudding economics. It was all about, “We’re going to provide better services and cut spending.” That is what Mr Coe ran at the last election. There were all sorts of things, claiming that that would be the case. But when he was asked about it, he struggled to answer the question. He would mutter vaguely about finding efficiencies, but he never actually answered the question about what that meant and what it looked like.
To some extent the Chief Minister has hit the nail on the head in his challenge to Ms Lee today, in that what we are hearing from Ms Lee is very similar magic pudding economics. She is saying, “We’re going to make it better for you, whilst at the same time cutting expenditure,” and it just does not add up.
The reality is that these decisions are about priorities. From the Greens’ point of view, we have been clear in recent years that our priority has been about people and the planet. During the pandemic we have had to step up and support our community. The government as a whole—certainly, our part of it—have been very clear that we have chosen, opted, agreed to and made the decision to spend at a time when spending was needed. There were some things on which we had no choice. The necessary expenditure around the pandemic has been really important, and the expenditure around community support services, I would say, has been essential. In some ways. I do not think there has been a choice, but I guess you could have opted not to do those things.
The government has spent a lot of money supporting the community during the pandemic. At other times—and I will pick up Ms Lee’s point that it is not all about the pandemic—when we have chosen to make important investments to support our community, whether that is by providing a range of community services, health services or education services, all of these things invest in people in our community.
Of course, the other side of the equation is the planet side. It is not that these two things are unlinked; but, in trying to analyse the discussion, we have chosen to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video