Page 453 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 21 February 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Here we cannot expect much from this government. It is unlikely to consider the effect of large increases in the cost of ACT government or the low and declining levels and quality of ACT government services. It is unlikely to consider the effect of large increases in rates and taxes to pay for its mismanagement. It is unlikely to consider the immediate impacts of policies on local businesses, such as the Mitchell traders and the green waste collection industry. And it is unlikely to consider the effect of restricting residential land supply on people considering whether to move to the ACT. It is unlikely to consider anything other than selective numbers as demonstrated in the motion today.
It is unlikely that the actions of this Labor-Greens government have resulted in the growth stats that this motion is trying to take credit for. This motion is, once again, just an opportunity for one of the Labor members to get up and pretend that they are caring about something substantial. What the government needs to do is actually go to their own ACT government treasury briefs and have a look at the full story. The full picture is far more complex and shows a territory that is still heavily dependent on the public sector.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (10.27): The economic performance indicators listed in Mr Pettersson’s motion show the strength of the ACT economy. The sizeable increases in employment, dwelling numbers, exports and tourism, and the diversification of the economy prove the sound economic management of the Greens-Labor government alliance. But while we congratulate ourselves, we need also to consider the nature and the quality of the growth. Quality of growth is an important aspect. Population growth, economic growth and diversification are not inherently good. Aggregate statistics simply oversimplify what are very complicated issues.
If we look more closely at an example of aggregate statistics, Mr Pettersson noted in his motion that the territory’s population increased by 7,000 people over the past 12 months. Interestingly, the population of north Canberra is projected to grow by eight per cent, south Canberra five per cent and Belconnen by three per cent.
Meanwhile, no population growth is predicted for Woden; Tuggeranong’s population is predicted to decline by three per cent; and Weston Creek’s decline is a large seven per cent. Clearly, the quantum and consequences of population growth are very unevenly distributed across Canberra. But is population growth a desirable or even our ultimate goal?
The Greens do not agree with Mr Pettersson’s premise that rapid population growth is, in fact, a desirable goal. Population growth poses complex challenges, especially when it outruns infrastructure and services. Look at all the looming problems of imploding cities, for example, Sydney’s overcrowded trains, traffic jams and ridiculous housing prices.
There is a growing consciousness in the community that economic growth driven by rapid population growth and high consumption is simply unsustainable. As I discussed last year, our environmental impact is given by our population, times our
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video