Page 3027 - Week 08 - Thursday, 7 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
These things are quite simple. We still spend at 122 per cent—in other words, at 22 per cent above the national average in delivering government services for the people of the ACT—yet our revenue effort is only 104 point something per cent, just above the national average, in the middle of the ruck, consistent with our neighbours: lower than three jurisdictions in Australia, average across the board.
How is it we do that? How is it that we have the capacity to deliver services at 122 per cent—in other words, 22 per cent above the national average—whilst taxing at the national average and still run a surplus? It is through the strength of the budget. It is through the embedded savings. It is through the efficiencies. It is through the tough decisions that were taken as a result of decisions we took in that particular budget as a result of advice we received—some of which we accepted, some of which we did not. A perspective, advice and a position in relation to matching the difference between historically high levels or over-levels of expenditure in the ACT give that capacity.
We did it; we have done it. We succeeded. The results are there for all to see. You see it in the record levels of expenditure on health and education, in the taking of mental health expenditure from the lowest in Australia when we came to government to the second highest in Australia over our two terms of government. Just reflect on that. When we came to government, the level of expenditure on mental health was the lowest in Australia—a matter of shame. It is now the second highest in Australia, as a result of massive injections. We have increased funding for child protection by 167 per cent. We have increased funding for disability services by in the order of 70 per cent. We have doubled expenditure on fire and emergency services. We have done that as a result of the decisions that we took in the 2006-07 budget as a result of the tough decisions that we took arising out of the functional review.
The focus today is for the purposes of a political stunt—a focus on the document, on the report, not on the outcomes. You can understand why our opponents in this place, the Liberals and the Greens, do not want to focus on the outcomes. I know how uncomfortable the Greens are at the massive $240 million worth of expenditure on climate change—a party that do not have a climate change policy, but still maintain themselves as the Greens. Of course they do not want to talk about that.
Of course they do not want to talk about the Australia-leading green car legislation that was introduced today—Australia leading, an Australian first: the only jurisdiction in Australia that now provides differential stamp duty, that actually encourages people to buy low-emitting vehicles. I must go and search the press releases for the Greens’ congratulations on this world-leading legislation—the glowing endorsement of the legislation, a commitment that is a result of our capacity to legislate, with the knowledge that we have a strong balance sheet, the strongest balance sheet in Australia. These things do not happen by accident; they happen as a result of tough decisions. We have the strongest balance sheet in Australia. Nothing has ever been achieved by any other government, because no other government ever had the capacity to take the tough decisions that we took that have delivered those results.
The other great irony in relation to the fruits of the tough decisions we have taken is to see the unholy rush, most particularly by the Liberal Party in their election promises, to spend it—to spend the bounty of the tough decisions that we have taken. They have
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .