Page 3029 - Week 08 - Thursday, 25 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR BARR (Molonglo—Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Children and Young People, Minister for Planning and Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation) (5.25): I rise in support of the budget and in support of the government’s economic strategy. It is interesting that in the speeches from the members of the opposition who preceded me we had a curious mix of different policy positions in relation to what the fiscal policy stance of government should be in an economic downturn. There are a few over there who seem to adopt a neoclassical view that at any point in the economic cycle the government must always remain in surplus. There are obviously a few adherents to that policy view on that side. There are a few others who, simultaneously, want you to spend more and cut more at the same time. Then there is probably the Seselja view, which is: we will cut a certain amount but then spend even more than that and then come back into this place and criticise the lack of an apparent strategy.
Mr Smyth has probably got three lines as shadow treasurer. One we hear a lot is around diversifying the economic base: opposition—bingo!—there. One of his favourites, because it is the stock standard response to any policy issue, apparently, is that there must always be a plan and if there is a plan the plan does not have enough detail and if the plan has too much detail then he does not like the plan and we should have another plan. That is all that you get from the opposition. It is not often that I commend the Greens party, but in the ACT they are showing more economic responsibility and a greater level of economic understanding than the Liberals. I think those opposite might want to reflect for a moment on what the average Canberran would think—that the Greens in fact are showing more economic responsibility than the Liberals.
A point that Mr Hanson raised in his contribution was that it is unrealistic to expect opposition parties to come forward with alternative budget statements. Again, I would like to commend the Greens in this matter—not the ACT Greens but the Tasmanian Greens. They have released and put on the public record their alternative budget strategy for Tasmania. It is interesting, Madam Deputy Speaker—
Mr Smyth: Yes, but it is an election year.
MR BARR: “It is an election year,” I hear. So only in election years will other parties be required to put forward alternative budget strategies. I commend the Tasmanian Greens for at least having a position. The Tasmanian Greens have set an example that the ACT Greens might choose to follow by publishing an alternative budget statement. It lays down the challenge to the Liberal opposition to come forward with an alternative set of views. There are elements of the Tasmanian Greens’ policy strategy that are applicable to the ACT and they are grappling with many issues that are similar to the ones we face in Canberra. They have adopted a novel policy approach, which is effectively to cut back public sector wages in Tasmania, to make everyone work 2½ hours less. They will save $100 million that way in order to fund a range of green initiatives that look remarkably like what we see in the ACT. I wonder who borrows from whom. But they are interested in cruelty-free eggs brand promotions and they want to spend money on organic carrots. There are a range of things that the Tasmanian Greens are interested in and I will give them credit for having the courage to put forward an alternative vision and strategy. We would welcome that from the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .