Page 1144 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 8 April 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Chris Uhlmann, where he could not explain any of the productivity figures which he had been espousing.
Putting that aside, we did hear a lot about productivity from the then opposition leader. Cutting one-quarter of CSIRO’s research budget, with the loss of up to 1,000 front-line scientists in 2008-09 and a further 500 in the next year, to me, does not seem like something that will improve this nation’s productivity. It does not seem like a policy that will see this nation move forward in the way that we would want. It would seem to be a mindless attempt to get to their 1.5 per cent of GDP surplus.
We read at the weekend an analysis in the Weekend Australian of what the government is putting out—that there may be a slowing in revenue as a result of the downturn in the stock market and as a result of a number of other factors. If that is actually the case and it is not just a matter of spin and pretending that things are getting tougher than they are and if we accept that revenue is actually slowing, you do need to question where the federal government’s head is on this issue. Is it going to mindlessly pursue a 1.5 per cent of GDP surplus, come what may, regardless of whether revenue is slowing significantly? If it is, and if it does pursue that in a slowing economy and in slowing revenue circumstances, the effect on Canberra could be much more significant than we would now think.
That is fundamentally what the federal government will have to explain. Is it going to demonstrate its fiscal conservatism by sticking to the 1.5 per cent of GDP surplus, regardless of the economic conditions and regardless of the changing revenue conditions? If it goes down that path, we may well see some of the serious cuts that have been talked about and speculated on in the papers. If that is the case then there will be a serious adverse impact on people in the ACT.
As a representative of Canberra, I certainly hope that is not the case. I hope that, whatever efficiency savings are found, they do not involve mindless cutting and that we do not see slashing for the sake of it. I hope we do not see Canberra, the people of Canberra and workers in Canberra sacrificed so that, come what may, Kevin Rudd can prove once and for all that he is an economic conservative.
Mr Corbell: Do you mean like 1996?
MR SESELJA: Let us compare it: a $10 billion deficit with $96 billion of debt is a serious issue.
Mr Barr: What was inflation in 1996?
MR SESELJA: Let us talk about that, but if the federal government is going to pursue, regardless of the changing economic circumstances, a 1.5 per cent of GDP surplus, the impact on Canberra could be serious. It must be said that in those circumstances, if they eventuate, many Canberrans and the ACT economy will be sacrificed in order for Kevin Rudd to be able to show what a true fiscal conservative he is.
There is nothing wrong with reasonable efficiency savings. The Howard government had efficiency savings throughout its term of government. It is a reasonable thing to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .