Page 1947 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 6 May 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
With this in mind, there is a need to diversify the ACT economy to build a strong private sector. We need to do this to lessen the economic dependency we have on Commonwealth activity, and because a stronger and more diverse private sector represents the bridge to the new economy that will help the ACT create a more dynamic and attractive society.
We should also not fear strategies that pursue economic growth and development.
I think even Mr Barr would agree with that. No, Mr Barr winces; perhaps he does not agree with that. But it is interesting that Ms Gallagher contradicts what the Chief Minister has said, because she said, “We can’t do this; we won’t do this.” In his new document the Chief Minister says that they have delivered on the strategies and the initiatives of the 2003 economic white paper budget, but that is not true. It is not true, and it is borne out by the statistics that say the private sector is declining in the ACT in terms of the number of people employed in that sector. It is also not true from what Ms Gallagher just said, which is, quite simply: “It is never going to happen. We’re always simply going to be reliant upon the commonwealth and the ACT government for their spending; therefore, why should we bother?”
This is actually a budget motion; it is an economic development motion; it is about the economy. I notice that the Minister for Business and Economic Development has left the chamber without speaking, and the Treasurer has gone as well. I expected the Minister for Business and Economic Development would at least stay here and have something to say. So, it is really very interesting that the Chief Minister, the Minister for Business and Economic Development, has simply left. He has got nothing to say about his document. This motion talks about the Chief Minister’s document. It talks about Capital development: towards our second century, but we have got a minister who is not prepared to defend his strategy because, in many ways, it is indefensible. It is bland, it is colourless, it is dull, it is boring, it has no direction and it has no plan. It is symptomatic of what we get from the Stanhope-Gallagher government.
I do not think the case has been made for deleting the other parts of my motion. I do not think it was explicit in what Ms Hunter said—I am sure we would give her time to speak again if she so desired—as to whether or not she believes that the reforms of 2006 were a success or whether they failed. It would be interesting to know whether the Greens actually believe that there is wasteful expenditure inside the Stanhope government. It would be interesting to find out whether or not the Greens believe that the Stanhope-Gallagher government has failed to diversify the economic base, and it would be interesting to know whether or not the Greens either condemn or applaud the government for its response to the downturn in the ACT economy.
I think these things are left hanging there simply by saying that we will just put three statements of the bleeding obvious in a document and call that a motion. Apparently the new criterion of whether something informs the people of Canberra is the bar, but perhaps that does not give too much information at all.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (10.59): I thank Mr Smyth for bringing forward the motion today. Since we are speaking to the amendment, I think it
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .