Page 1228 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 24 March 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We will continue to look at efficiencies across the public service, as we do. But we are very mindful of our responsibilities to provide a very solid response to the issues that the ACT economy is facing in this, our first budget of our new term in government.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (3.56): It is a pleasure to come and speak. I had not planned to speak so early but I did feel that, in response to Ms Gallagher’s commentary, it was worth putting a few things on the record. We heard the classic argument from Katy Gallagher just then: it is not about what we do with the money, it is about how much money we spend. That is the essential argument put forward by the Treasurer here today. It is: “We’ve spent hundreds of millions on health, therefore, we have done a good job in health. If we spend hundreds of millions in education, we have done a good job in education.” But we actually see—
Ms Gallagher: You stand up and say that when you provided the worst service ever in the health system.
MR SESELJA: It is difficult. I know it is hard for the Treasurer but the reality is that a number of the key indicators have been going backwards. The reality is that that is a fact—a number of the key indicators, particularly waiting times, have been going backwards. We hear always about how much money is being spent but we do not hear from this Treasurer and from the government in general about what are the improved outcomes as a result of the investment. Part of the reason is that they rarely target the spending as well as they should.
It is the most simplistic and basic argument to say, “We’re spending more on education than anyone ever has and we’re spending more on health than anyone ever has.” The budget is 60 per cent bigger than it was when they came to office. They are getting more revenue. The economy has grown. Of course, the budget has grown faster than the economy but that is a story for another day. It is a ridiculous argument to use that as a measure of success. By that measure, virtually every government would be better than the one before. Whenever more tax is received over time, that is therefore better. That is a ridiculous argument. It is a simplistic argument, and it does not actually go to the point of the matter of public importance brought forward by Mrs Dunne today. I thank her for bringing this forward, because it is an important issue.
The Treasurer’s rhetoric has changed somewhat but we did hear rhetoric from her early on in her time as Treasurer essentially implying that in a slowing economy any government expenditure is good. It does not matter whether it is targeted; it does not matter what it actually achieves; any spending is good because it stimulates the economy. That is simply not true. That has been the very strong implication in some of the Treasurer’s comments, particularly those made before Christmas. Presumably after that time there was some further advice from Treasury saying, “Actually, not all government spending is as effective as other government spending in stimulating the economy, and not every dollar of extra government spending is worth doing.” Of course, if that were the case, we would just keep increasing budgets. That would be the answer to every economic question. We would increase taxes; we would increase spending; and that would be how we ensure that things remain stimulated. That is simply not the case.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .