Page 2302 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 22 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
And let us not declare a false war. Let us not say, “Only we can look after the poor, and the Liberals do not care.” It is not true; it is a lie. Anybody who says it is a liar. Let us work together to come up with a solution. This is a good solution. Let us work out what the impact of the government’s annual budget is on Canberrans. That is not unreasonable.
Ms Burch got up in her usual way, offering very little to the debate, asserting that we were misleading. She then said “fails to recognise”, but just went on to read a list of concessions. Yes, we note the concessions. Many of them are there because they were started by Liberal governments. Yet there are those who are above the thresholds who miss out on the concessions, who are caught in traps of their own. Many of them on paper are quite wealthy, and therefore you might expect them not to deserve any support, but, because of the fallout of the GFC, they have seen their super eroded or locked up and are unable to access their funds. Many have had to return to work just to survive. We have to question whether that is fair.
A litany is not an understanding of what is going on, Ms Burch. Inputs are not outcomes. It is a common mistake: “We have spent more; therefore we are much better.” The problem is that it is the outcomes that count. If you cannot address the issue—it is commonly a refuge of ministers who cannot address the issues or think about what is going on.
We have got some interesting amendments from Ms Gallagher. They are disingenuous at best. I am particularly intrigued by part (d), where she says:
GFS revenue, as a proportion of the economy, has decreased from 14.4 to 13.7 percent …
I would like the minister to tell us what her definition of economy is. What happens if we look at some of the measures that are printed by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, for instance gross state product? In 2002-03, GFS revenue was $2.14 billion over $21 billion, a percentage of 9.8. In 2009-10, GFS revenue is $3.4 billion over $25 billion of gross state product, or 13.2 per cent. That is the closest number I can find to the Treasurer’s 13.7. If you go to state final demand impact, it was 10.1 per cent in 2002-03, but it is 7.8 per cent in 2009-10. The question is: what numbers are we using here? It would be interesting to have the Treasurer and Chief Minister reveal what her definition of an economy is and where she gets the calculations for these numbers.
This is an important motion. It deals with everyday issues and concerns for all Canberrans. Cost of living matters are top of mind for virtually everyone, particularly in the aftermath of the global economic and financial crisis. But this crisis has not been the sole cause of any concerns within our community; other major factors are also in play as influences on our cost of living. I say to the new Chief Minister: I note that one of the consequences of your statement to the Assembly on Tuesday is that you said you would be able to tell the ACT community what the effects would be of your policies on them. As the situation stands at present, you are unable to do that. And, as with the stance with your amendments to this motion, you are unwilling to do that. So almost at the first hurdle, two days after your statement, you fall down.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video