Page 2855 - Week 07 - Thursday, 7 June 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the many other Canberra families who depend on commonwealth government and commonwealth public servant expenditure for their income, it has a profound impact on our city.
The commonwealth budget is taking money out of the ACT and we think it is appropriate that there is a fiscal policy response by the ACT government to increase our expenditure, and offset some of the commonwealth contraction. I would say that, given the continuing risks to the ACT economy, particularly from the commonwealth, and the better than expected growth figures published yesterday, there is a bit of a question about whether the response should have been slightly less, but generally let me say that the Greens agree in principle with the amount proposed to be spent.
That said, I would like to emphasise the point that, whilst the bottom line is very important, as former Prime Minister John Howard said in his response to the 1989 budget, the net operating balance is “not the real test of the success or failure of government policy”. He said:
The … government must be judged on the impact that its policies have … on the economy.
I have to say that this is one of the very few occasions where I agree with Mr Howard. The overall fiscal policy of any government is very important but it is certainly not the be-all and end-all that it is often portrayed to be. As Mr Howard said, the real test is how the money is being spent and what it is really delivering for the community.
The need to spend additional money creates an enormous opportunity, and any fiscal stimulus should deliver real and lasting benefits, not just be a feel-good flash in the pan that ultimately leaves us in the same position a few years down the track.
The Quinlan tax report said it well when it stated that we have good infrastructure and excellent services but that considerable future investments are required. There is much investment required and the challenge for us is to prioritise what we would do first. The Greens have long argued that we need a much better approach to infrastructure investment, a smarter approach that avoids the need for future costs and ultimately makes our city more sustainable and a better place for all Canberrans to live in.
Rather than simply spending for stimulus, this budget should be investing in sustainable outcomes that will last well beyond this budget cycle. If we put $80 million into acute health care, we meet a growing demand, but when we invest in preventative health measures, that demand will be reduced. When you spend $20 million for a big hole in the ground, you get a place to tip your waste until it fills up and you have to dig another one. If you invest in recycling, education and resource recovery, you get a lasting benefit and prevent the need to again spend millions more for a new landfill. When you duplicate a road, we know that new lane will fill up. Investing in a rapid transit network, on the other hand, will improve our transport efficiency and deliver returns well into the future. All of these investments do the job of stimulating the economy now, but the difference between spending and investing is the financial, social and environmental benefits that we will reap in the years to come.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video