Page 2749 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 29 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
investment. Yes, you are investing some, but it is less than you invested last year and, given that you have got a precarious budget, you have a series of internal inconsistencies in this budget. We have got higher taxes. It is a budget that contains higher taxes. It is a budget that is anti family. It is a budget that is anti business and it is a budget put together by a minister who had no idea what he was doing. And that is most unfortunate.
We then had the whole notion of the revenue that would be received and the figures that led to the recall day, where we saw that, in fact, the estimates that were in the budget predicted a drop in employment. To achieve the estimates that were in the budget, we would have had to have seen a drop in employment in the ACT in May and June of this year. That obviously did not happen, and it was obvious that it was never going to happen. But there he was doggedly defending this. The Treasurer was away—off in France drinking rose—and the Chief Minister is about to go to Spain to go cycling. It is a wonderful government we have got, so vague, so out of touch, just off and away—and at a time when we have seen the private sector fall from 59 per cent of the employment in the ACT to 51 per cent and we have seen the public sector grow from 41 per cent to 49 per cent.
We have got a paper on the table, Capital development: towards our second century, and that is all it is—it is a paper; it is probably not worth the paper that it was written on or the tree that was destroyed to put it out on—and the problem is that this government has failed to diversify the ACT economy. The opportunities were there, the start had been made, we had seen growth in the private sector so that we were not reliant on the public service. We all know that the public service will always be the number one business in the ACT, and it is great to have that as the base. But, if you want additional revenue into the future, to deliver the projects that you would like to deliver, then of course what you need to do is make sure that the economy is sound and that you have the programs to deliver it.
One of the other programs, of course, that they quote as underpinning capital development is the skills shortage and their response to skills shortage. That had happened well and truly before the capital development paper was put out. So to claim that is a bit disingenuous. They have said there will be something on film, but what we have said in the dissenting report—and these are good recommendations—is, and I quote the recommendation on page 66:
That the Minister for Business and Economic Development table in the Legislative Assembly by the last sitting day in August 2010 the list of plans to be developed and the timetable for their release to deliver Capital Development: Towards Our Second Century.
I notice that the Treasurer in her inadequacy and inability to argue cogently against the dissenting report just simply says—(Second speaking period taken.) She says—and this is my particular favourite, on page 1 of her references to the dissenting report—“The government is concerned about the incorrect and unfair conclusions drawn by the dissenting members that it has sought to avoid scrutiny.” It is quite clear that the government has sought to avoid scrutiny by the number of questions that it has taken on notice and the number of questions that it has failed to answer.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video