Page 3895 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 4 December 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
put them under more pressure, which may put those that use those ovals at more risk as the ovals become degraded, but that is our strategy.” I have to say, minister, that it is a very poor strategy indeed, and I know that the community have told you they are not impressed with the money and that they are not impressed with how it is going.
The introduction of this second appropriation bill so early in 2007-08—the bill was being considered and almost put together before the first quarter of the year had passed—represents failure in governance and financial management by the Stanhope government. You have to ask: why has this bill been introduced now? The cynical amongst us would say that the government is being hurt by continuing criticism of its policies and responses across a range of policy areas, it has seen a boost to its revenue and it simply wants to try and fend off this criticism by spend, spend, spend. Why else do we see the Treasurer using the phrase “deliver another dividend” in this tabling speech?
The previous dividends have been school closures, cuts to sport and recreation, cuts to tourism, hikes in charges across the board on your rates, water abstraction and other charges, and more charges against the property sector in particular, but against business. But they are not dividends.
Perhaps Mr Barr could lend the Treasurer his economics book from economics 1 at the ANU about what a dividend is, because people do not see having more money taken out of their pockets as a dividend—and that is all this government has done. Or is the Chief Minister preparing the community for further displays of pork-barrelling in the lead-up to the 2008 election? I am sure that is part of it too: “Let’s get them used to us spending. We’ll roll out all these promises and it will make good for everything.”
There was little argument made to support this bill at the time. There has been little argument made in the course of the debate today to confirm it. What we have is a failure of governance, and it is a failure of governance for a number of reasons. The Stanhope government’s climate change strategy was late. It should have been finalised early to enable it to be incorporated into the budget. Instead we are coming here bit by bit, piecemeal, which is entirely the approach of this government to the environment: bit by bit and piecemeal to funding.
The government’s management of ACTION is not up to the mark; it is as simple as that. The issues set out in this bill were, or should have been, well known as the last budget was being prepared—and they were, but nobody could come up with the answer. The criticism has mounted. “We’ll just throw more money at it.” Many of the relatively minor spending decisions in the bill should either have been included in the 2007 budget or held over to the 2008 budget, which we know is being prepared as we debate this bill.
The scenario that led to this bill appearing is quite clear. The Chief Minister and his colleagues have seen the additional cash rolling in, the urgent call has gone out to the departments and agencies to find projects that could use up at least some of that cash, and a compendium of projects has been cobbled together to comprise this bill. This is not a bill that represents a cohesive strategy by a government that knows where it is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .