Page 2986 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The Greens have consistently made the point, and it is also expressed in the ACIL Tasman report, that, in applying the beneficiary-pays principle, particular care must be paid to recognising that needs will change through time and that without careful planning capital works may provide little to no benefit to future taxpayers.
We know that the economy is about to change very rapidly. Indeed, the government has committed to that change in adopting a zero emissions goal. We need, and the Greens wholeheartedly support, structural change that shifts us away from fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions. We must be very careful to ensure that we are not burdening future generations with emissions intensive infrastructure.
In answer to my question on notice E10-009, the Treasurer replied that a cost-benefit analysis is undertaken for each project considered as part of the budget process and, further, that comprehensive business cases are developed for each new spending proposal. We would very much like to see some of these analyses. As I said, the ACIL Tasman report does raise the issue of the unsustainability of maintaining the current level of capital works. Given that this is a rare opportunity to provide for the infrastructure needs of the community, and it is unlikely that we will be in a position to do it again in the near future, the importance of getting it right and ensuring its long-term usefulness cannot be overstated.
I would now like to turn to some of the specific outputs in the economic and financial management classes. In monitoring and advising on the state of the ACT economy, I note that the ACT Treasury have consistently performed well relative to other states in the accuracy of their forecasts. In light of the fact that there are particular difficulties in forecasting the impacts of commonwealth spending decisions, this achievement deserves particular mention. I would also make the point that all the key forecasts were found to be “reasonable” by ACIL Tasman, and the unique forecasting difficulties we have in this jurisdiction were also noted in their report.
I must say at this point that it is most disappointing that the dissenting report contains the chapter title “The real state of the economy”, which suggests that the Treasury department is providing deceptive or blatantly inaccurate forecasts. At times they may be conservative, but I think they are certainly prudent, reasonable and rational.
I would also like to mention the reallocation of gaming machines and again make the point that the Greens’ view is that, in the process of reallocating gaming machines, overall numbers should be reduced. We currently have around 40 per cent more than the national average allocation of machines per capita. Given the acute and well-recognised social harms associated with gaming machines, it is our view that we should adopt a range of harm minimisation measures and reduce the prevalence of gaming machines in the ACT. This, of course, needs to be done in consultation with the clubs industry. The Greens acknowledge the important role that clubs play in our community and that their future viability and economic viability need to be considered as part of this conversation.
As to the presentation of the annual budget papers, there is a common criticism expressed in this place that the amount of information presented in the budget papers is insufficient. The first recommendation of the first Select Committee on Estimates in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video