Page 1224 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 30 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
future fund to cover pension costs of federal employees or to be allocated to state and local governments to better fund public schools, hospitals, police, public transport and the variety of other functions that we have heard from this side that need to be funded, and to help communities in Canberra and around the country keep those services up?
The federal government needs to rebuild the credibility of its budget aggregates by publishing longer term measures that are consistent over time. The important thing here is that the GST is attributed to the states and territories, and the commonwealth are choosing not to count it; they are not comparing like with like. It is not a reasonable assessment.
The points that those opposite seek to make about the wonders of Treasurer Costello’s budget management—I referred to it in the debate yesterday—are jam-jar economics: “let us put some money in this jar, give it a label and say that that is good economic management”. It is absolute rubbish. Anyone who delves deeply into the issues, such as Rory Robertson from the Macquarie Bank, a very reputable institution, sees the reality of the situation. Again, those opposite talk in the terms that they do about the need for government to be more efficient in its spending and then they go out and oppose every single measure to make government expenditure more efficient and to deal with savings in portfolio areas.
Mr Smyth in the debate earlier called me Andrew Scissorhands because I am prepared to have a look at how effectively we spend money in the portfolios that I have carriage of. I am then criticised for making spending reductions in those portfolios to improve efficiency and to be able to redirect resources away from administration into frontline services. We passed a piece of legislation yesterday, Mr Mulcahy, that did exactly that.
Mr Mulcahy: Where have I criticised you?
MR BARR: You have not, Mr Mulcahy. Mr Smyth, on the other hand, has. He is the ultimate in walking both sides of the street in any political debate. He is the one who says, “The government is wasteful, spending all the time.” Then he criticises every single savings measure. In the portfolios where he shadows me, he does this consistently. He says, “We must use money more efficiently. We cannot possibly ever look at a budget and make some savings, because this would mean a terrible reduction.” He goes on time after time. In general, this side of politics supports expenditure restraint—
Mr Mulcahy: Where have I said it?
MR BARR: Not you, Mr Mulcahy. Mr Smyth and his shadow ministers—the other ones, the ones that will no doubt cause you endless grief should you ever become Treasurer of the territory—have. That is an unlikely thing, but should it ever occur you had better watch some of your shadow ministerial colleagues. These are the people who walk both sides of the street on these issues. They are never prepared to support a serious reduction in and take a serious look at the administrative costs of government. They oppose every sensible reduction in government spending yet have the hide to claim that the government does nothing to reduce expenditure. (Time expired.)
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .