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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Friday, 14 May 2004) . . Page.. 2001 ..

statement of intent for the hotel school confirms that the government will continue financial support until December 2006 but with no firm decision, as yet, on whether to close the school or keep it open. Where then is this government’s so-called commitment to making the best use of taxpayers’ funds, and its accountability to the community?

I could go on citing examples of less for more, funding omissions and the indecision, as they are rampant right through this budget. However, it is a pattern that has been repeated throughout Labor’s reign in the last two years. I believe that the financial position will become steadily worse in the out years if this pattern continues to be followed. Nevertheless, notwithstanding our many criticisms, we will not be opposing 2004-05 budget as a whole. It does contain some welcome initiatives and continued funding for valuable ongoing programs. Nevertheless, to ensure that our concerns about these sad omissions and increased expenditures have been placed on the public record, we will await the next 12 months with interest.

MR QUINLAN (Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Business and Tourism and Minister for Sport, Racing and Gaming) (5.48), in reply: At lunchtime today I was asked by one of the Canberra Times reporters what I thought the opposition leader would say about the budget. I said, “I think the opposition leader will get personal and will sling a few cliches around.” Bingo.

I understand from what the Leader of the Opposition has said that he is a latecomer to Keynesian economics. We might try and have a little progression from economics through accounting to maths. He is talking about the additional expenditure of the territory and not really accounting for changes through time. If you look at the increase in CPI through the period he is talking about, you will see that we have something like a nine per cent increase. If you look at the size of Canberra, just population-wise, we have another three per cent increase, and we have an overall expenditure increase of about 18 per cent, making a net difference of about six per cent good solid growth under a good solid government.

Mr Smyth referred to the Actew dividend. I think he was complaining about it, but that would fit quite neatly, I would have thought, into his newfound Keynesian approach. Mr Smyth talked about tourism. Let me assure this place that all the figures show that tourism is doing better now than it has ever done, since it has been tidied up by this government and without the additional $3 million that we will put in over this year.

There have been some commentaries on the budget. Firstly, we had two public events close to the budget and at least the representatives of the business sector roundly complimented the budget. It received sevens. Seven out of 10 for a Labor budget from a property council: mate, that is gold. Just to put it in perspective—after Mr Smyth’s erudite trip into economics, which he appears to have mastered in a very short space of time—I refer members to the Australian Financial Review of Wednesday, 5 May. It reads: “Canberra forges ahead with high-tech vision.” Unfortunately, it starts by saying, “If the ACT Treasurer Ted Quinlan has his way, Canberra will be the next Cambridge…”, his vision of a city. I think this particular learned newspaper accredits what is happening in Canberra to the government of the last three years. Secondly and more importantly, I would also like to relate to Mr Smyth in relation to his dissertation on deficits and what I do not know about them. I will give another quotation from the Australian Financial Review. This reads:

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