Page 1432 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 24 March 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The problem is that, if you do not work it, if you do not believe in it and if you do not have a plan for it, of course that will happen, and that is part of the problem of the economic woes that we have.
The government are very quick to jump at how much they spend. As the Leader of the Opposition pointed out so well, they are very good at telling you what they have spent. What they cannot tell you is what you get for it, and we are perpetually now in the situation where Canberrans as taxpayers pay more and get less from their ACT government, and wait longer for it.
Let us put it into perspective: the budget expenditure in GFS format in 1989-90, so the first ACT budget, was $1.132 billion, $1.1 billion. In the decade to 1999-2000, it went from $1.1 billion to $1.4 billion—a 25 per cent increase. In the decade from 1999-2000 to 2009-10, it went from $1.412 billion to $3.623 billion—a 157 per cent increase. And we still spend more and get less for it. There is nothing in that period, in the nine budgets of the Labor Party, that you can point at as a huge gain for the service delivery to the people of the ACT. By any measure, things are worse. You only need to go to the ACTCOSS press release that I mentioned and to their Nothing left to give document and to their priorities for the budget document to know that this is an area under stress.
That is the whole point of this motion today. One of the ways you look after those who are vulnerable is to improve the economy: create jobs, make housing more affordable, deliver more effective services and deliver them more efficiently, so that you can actually spend on the people who deserve to have it spent on: the taxpayers of the ACT. But, according to Ms Hunter, that notion is less than constructive and has little substance. I think people will come to know what Ms Hunter stands for—and apparently it is not very much.
That is the problem that we have: a Treasurer who can only focus on raising taxes or cutting services and who is not willing to address the proportion of the public sector to the private sector. Both sectors need to prosper and thrive in the ACT for the ACT to be viable long term. It is well and good to talk about being socially sustainable or environmentally sustainable, but if you do not put the third leg on the triangle, economically sustainable, you cannot achieve the other two. You will never achieve the other two. And that is why this motion is so important.
To hear the convenor of the Greens say that going back to these issues is a waste of time and some sort of foolish repetition just shows the level of understanding that the spokesperson for the Greens truly has about these issues. These are important issues because every time the government put their hand into the taxpayers’ pockets for increased fees and charges and taxes and rates, it affects how our families live. It is real for them. It is very real for those who are vulnerable and it is very real when we are facing the perfect storm as forecast by the Canberra Business Council.
We think about the people of Gungahlin who, if the Greens had their way, would be at the end of a one-lane dual carriageway, who would not be getting the services that the upgrade is about to provide. We welcome the upgrade. The people probably would
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video