Page 750 - Week 02 - Thursday, 12 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The only argument that economic conservatives put forward against a government seeking to stimulate an economy in this sort of economic circumstance is that there might be a propensity for government investment to crowd out private investment. It is entirely clear from the state of the world financial markets that private investment has plummeted, many banking institutions around the world have collapsed and there is almost a credit freeze across the world. That is a pretty clear indication that there is not a huge amount of private investment that will be crowded out by governments stepping in at this point in time. In fact, some of the most vociferous supporters of stimulus packages are those private sector businesses who will require that level of credit and that level of debt in an economy in order to undertake their activities.
In response to Mr Coe’s assertions, the obvious comeback to that is to ask him: who does he think will benefit from this sort of investment? Who is going to be doing the work that will be generated by this commonwealth injection of funds? It is going to be the private sector. It is going to be the private businesses that he lauds. It is not as if the government will be employing additional staff to undertake the building works in schools; they will be done by the private sector. The government will be stepping in to fill the void that is not currently being filled as a result of a global financial collapse.
Alan Greenspan, who is well regarded as an economist of considerable merit on both sides of politics in the United States and here in Australia, has stated this is by far the worst economic crisis he has ever seen and is the type of event that occurs once in half a century or probably once in a century. It does demand a response.
The petty suggestions and the sloganeering about government debt as if governments have never been in debt and that governments cannot get out of debt belies the seriousness of this situation. It is the sort of childish, Young Liberal debating point that you would expect at a Young Liberal conference, but you might think that in a parliament in Australia we could do a little better than that. I am sure in time Mr Coe will raise the standard of his contribution. It is important that we are able to get on with the delivery of this package. So I do urge—
Mrs Dunne: We don’t know what the package is.
MR BARR: We know what the package is. The federal government has put forward a package. It is our clear desire to see those elements that directly relate to the territory and that will have an implication for the territory government in terms of delivery clear the hurdle of the Senate as soon as possible so that we are able to get on with delivering those programs.
In yesterday’s debate on this matter, I went through an exhaustive list of capital works projects that have been delivered in ACT schools. More than 270 projects across 70 schools have been delivered in the first 12 months of the ACT government’s four-year investment. That is work that has been carried out by the private sector, carried out to a high standard to improve school infrastructure. That is a good thing. We are really yet to hear a substantive position from the opposition on that. Surely they are not opposed to the private sector delivering the work. Surely they are not opposed to the work being undertaken in all of our schools.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .