Page 141 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 11 February 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This really goes to the heart of this issue. What we get consistently from the shadow treasurer is an argument, partly made, that the government spends too much. The spending on the asbestos eradication scheme was supported, so presumably that is quarantined from what would be a Treasurer Smyth budget in the future. Apparently spending on health, education, the environment and a few other things that the shadow treasurer indicated would also be quarantined from any spending reduction.
The onus here is really on the shadow treasurer in moving motions like these. If he is concerned about the level of government spending and if he is concerned about the range of things that he claims to be concerned about, he has ample opportunity to put forward a motion today calling on the government to reduce expenditure in certain areas—if he has the courage of his convictions. If he really wants to enter into a debate and have that debate about where the government should be spending its money, taxpayers’ money, where the budget priorities should be—if he wants to do that, he should put that forward. If he wants to be the advocate of fiscal Darwinism for the territory and if he wants to get into an austerity fetish, Madam Speaker––
Mr Hanson interjecting––
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Hanson, you interject far too much. You speak across the chamber. You are a distraction to the speakers and to other members. Desist.
MR BARR: If the austerity fetish and fiscal Darwinism are the preferred policy approach from the shadow treasurer, bring it on. I am very happy to have that debate—very happy.
Fundamentally, our fiscal policy settings at this time in our city’s economic history are designed to encourage infrastructure growth, to encourage jobs growth and to encourage economic growth. Any rational economist would recognise that in the current economic circumstances a mad rush for the territory government to deliver a surplus for the sake of it, which is the argument from the shadow treasurer—it is not about what is happening in the rest of the economy; it is all just about a tiny mind, a tiny accountant’s mind, as to how a budget should be presented.
If you are fair dinkum, Mr Smyth, get out there and argue for everything that should be cut from current government expenditure. Don’t sit there and say, “Goodness me.” Actually bring forward a policy alternative. You have been in this place longer than almost anyone. You have been sitting in the shadow treasurer’s position for as long as almost anyone in the Commonwealth of Nations, not just this country. You have had ample time to deliver a policy alternative. If we must immediately have a budget surplus, then indicate, today or even next week, in private members’ business, where you will cut the hundreds of millions of dollars of expenditure from the ACT government budget. Alternatively, you could put forward a range of measures that might increase revenue. There are many different ways of achieving a balanced budget.
The fundamental question for this economy now is: why would the government run a surplus in these economic circumstances? What would that achieve for our economy?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video