Page 1405 - Week 04 - Thursday, 26 March 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
community with confidence when we have a minister who seems so confused by the role of the ACT government and what they can and cannot do. We know that they are certainly clear on whose fault it is; they are very clear on that. There is no confusion. It is everyone else but them; everyone but them is responsible. But we do think there is significant confusion about what they can actually do to respond. So they have got their lines down on whose fault it is; I think it is the GFC and I think it is the commonwealth. They are the only reasons why the ACT economy is in any trouble—nothing to do with anything done by the ACT government.
But in terms of what they will actually do to respond, they have not got their lines right and we are seeing the back and forth. It will be interesting to see whether the language changes in the budget, whether when the budget is presented we see a Treasurer who says, “We have a plan to bring the ACT economy out of recession, to guard against the economic downturn,” or whether she will also be talking down expectations and saying,: “Don’t get your hopes up. Don’t expect too much.”
It is worth looking at some of the recommendations. Recommendation 1 states:
The Committee recommends that the ACT Government consider detailed statistics, such as unemployment, by industry sector before framing any further stimulus packages or the 2009-10 ACT Budget.
That to me seems an inherently reasonable recommendation, that these sorts of things should be considered. And, of course, the government’s response is to note it. They have noted that recommendation. But it is extraordinary that they did not do this. We are talking about what was originally mooted as a stimulus package and they did not actually do the work to consider the detailed statistics such as unemployment by industry sector before framing any further stimulus packages. Surely that would be a reasonable thing to do so you know where to target it. Surely that kind of basic analysis would help you target the spending. As it is, they have not done the analysis and they have spent money.
Money in the economy is always welcome, particularly at a time of slowdown. But is it targeted as well as it should be? No-one really knows because the work simply has not been done by the ACT government or by this Treasurer.
Recommendation 2 states:
The Committee recommends that the ACT Government ensure that future spending plans have a clear basis on how spending proposals may be evaluated.
That, once again, seems a very reasonable one and once again it is noted. But clearly that work was not done.
I did want to talk briefly about recommendation 4, which I think Ms Hunter has touched on:
The Committee recommends that the Treasurer provides to the Legislative Assembly a breakdown of the proportion of spending that is proposed in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .