Page 1944 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
way that it appears to be the last thing you want to cut is those vital services that are out there assisting those families in need, those individuals in need, across the community. As unemployment rises there will be more people who will need to use those services; so we will be standing quite firm on that one.
It is frustrating that over a decade of strong economic growth in the ACT we did not have a bigger bank balance—one large enough to cope with this downturn—and that there was the inevitable bust after the lengthy and very comfortable boom. Neither did previous territory governments—Liberal governments—maintain adequate ongoing infrastructure spending. This leaves us playing catch-up now because there has been an underspending in the area of infrastructure for a long time.
In line with most governments in Western economies, we in the ACT are looking to soften the impact of a global recession by pumping public funds into infrastructure. Our concern is not that this is putting the ACT budget into deficit but that it must not be spending for its own sake. It also looks too much like propping up our part of a global economy that leading international thinkers are telling us needs to change direction, and change direction now.
While bricks and mortar capital works well and will be welcomed by engineers and construction teams, builders and so forth, the people who will use these new buildings will also benefit once the ribbons are cut on them. But we need more time and we need much more than that from this investment if it is to genuinely improve our quality of life in the ACT.
We need guarantees that in putting the vast majority of the territory’s stimulus money into capital works these capital works take huge steps forward in terms of reduced environmental impact and long-term returns to the community. These works must be scrutinised to ensure that the social and environmental benefits of this once-in-a-lifetime spending spree at least match the economic benefits we expect.
In relation to the second part of the amendment I have moved—the fact that the ACT government did not publish the Strategic and functional review of the ACT public sector and services—we will be looking at that tomorrow. It is on the paper. We will be looking at it when the arbiter’s report is tabled. While we are disappointed that the decision was not to release the review, we will respect the decision of the independent arbiter.
Obviously, it is a document that we would still like government to release because it will answer some of those questions that are lingering out in the community. At the end of the day we chose to set up an independent process. Therefore, we will speak to it tomorrow but we will stand by the decision of the independent arbiter or referee.
On the issue of the economic white paper being superseded by the Capital development: towards our second century paper, I think it is important to point out that these sorts of documents are reviewed from time to time. If we take the social plan, which is part of the Canberra plan, it was reviewed a few years ago as part of that consultation out in the community to look at how things may have changed—how demographics have changed, the needs have changed. Therefore, we do need to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .