Page 1176 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 30 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
when the Greens are talking about climate change, we are not talking about the economy. But, hang on. Climate change is inextricably linked to the economy. The Stern report, which I heard Howard demeaning yesterday, along with old Europe and all those people that provide the traditions he loves so much, estimates that the cost of doing nothing about climate change will be 20 per cent of GDP and the cost of addressing climate change will be as low as one per cent of GDP.
The Greens’ economic analysis indicates that the economy is suffering from four major interrelated problems, and I did not see these addressed in the recent budget. The first is higher rates of environmental degradation of greenhouse gas emissions that have a direct impact on the economy. Without the environment there is no economy. The second problem is underinvestment in public infrastructure and public services, two areas that are hugely important to the success of our economy. We have a high rate of poverty and underemployment—and Mr Mulcahy used various statistical devices to disguise that—and we have a high trade and current account deficit that we are just putting off until later.
As anybody who has studied economics would know, if all these things are not affecting us now, they will undermine our economy in the long term. We have to start producing budgets that are for the medium and the long term as well as for the electoral fortunes of the party. I address my comments just as much to Mr Stanhope as to Mr Mulcahy and, through Mr Mulcahy, to Mr Howard. People are really sick of governments that just look at their political future instead of looking at our future, and especially our children’s future. While you continue to leave the environment, Mr Mulcahy, and consider it to be trivial, then we are not going to trust your economic credentials.
MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra—Leader of the Opposition) (11.59): I do not think Dr Foskey addressed the amendment there, but not to worry. I always enjoy listening to the Chief Minister; he is a great storyteller. In fact, some of the fantasies he comes up with are almost as good as those of JK Rowling or Hans Christian Andersen.
Aside from his amazing fantasies in relation to my own party, I was particularly interested in his comments about deficits under the previous Liberal government. He forgets the deficit we inherited from Labor—$344.8 million—and the deficits of the Follett government and the fact that the ACT actually had money in the bank when we got self-government and, lo and behold, we did not have it by the time we became the government in March 1995. That is another of his fantasies. Should we be the government after October 2008, no doubt we will have to pick up the pieces all over again.
Mr Seselja: We will have to do it next year too.
MR STEFANIAK: That is right. The ABC’s Michael Brissenden referred to the 2007-08 federal budget as “a well-crafted budget”. He went on to say, “It has plenty in reserve, with continuing surpluses into the future.” The Australian newspaper thought it was okay too. Its headline was “Costello master class”.
How is it that a government’s budget can be so good? It is because the Howard Liberal government has been a careful but innovative economic manager
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .