Page 586 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 11 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MS GALLAGHER (Molonglo—Treasurer, Minister for Health, Minister for Community Services and Minister for Women) (10.17): It is nice to see that the tone of the Assembly remains unchanged from last night—we start on the negative, and I imagine we will continue on the negative from the opposition all day.
I thank the member for raising this matter of significant importance to the community. In particular, I support many elements of the wording of his motion. I do find it unusual, though, that the motion, in a sense, supports the Rudd government’s proposed stimulus package. It notes the “significant spending” and “the critical issue of undertaking these capital works projects within tight time frames”. If that is what the Leader of the Opposition thinks, I am sure he is passing on to Malcolm Turnbull and independent senators the critical issue of undertaking these projects on time, because at the moment the delays are coming from your own side, Mr Seselja.
Mr Seselja: Have you called the independent senators?
MS GALLAGHER: I know it is a little embarrassing after your public stand on this stimulus package, and I was surprised to see the wording of the motion. But there it is—almost complete support for the stimulus package and an acknowledgement of what we have been saying for the last week, that it is important that we get on and do it.
This is not the first time nor, I dare say, the last time that the Leader of the Opposition has pointed his finger at the underspend in the capital works program. It is also not the first time he has ignored some of the basic facts. Capital projects, by their nature, carry timing and cost risks. Planning issues, market conditions and unforeseen physical circumstances are all part and parcel of capital projects. No reasonable amount of pre-planning can completely remove such risks from all projects in a program.
One would expect that a small program, such as those planned by the previous Liberal government, would have a greater chance of delivery—if, of course, done properly. A larger program, such as those budgeted by our government, would carry more risks. Yet in percentage terms our underspends are not at all different from those under the previous Liberal government. The Liberal government planned for small programs and it found it difficult to deliver those. We have planned for much bigger programs and we have delivered much bigger programs. The size of the program matters, and herein lies the true benchmark for comparison of performance.
Another pertinent measure of this government’s performance in this regard is the ACT government investment expenditure as a proportion of the total economy. This has doubled since we came to office in 2001. In 2001, ACT government investment expenditure accounted for about 0.5 per cent of total demand in the economy. In 2007, this share was around one per cent.
The growth in investment that this government has made in the territory’s infrastructure has outstripped the growth in the economy. The government is, and has been, well aware of the important role that investment in infrastructure plays in the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .