Page 2572 - Week 07 - Thursday, 18 June 2009

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

policy of fully funding superannuation by 2030. It would also add to the government’s financial liabilities and would imperil the government’s no net debt position …

(Time expired.)

MR SPEAKER: Ms Burch, a supplementary question?

MS BURCH: Indeed. Will the Treasurer be taking account of this independent report in framing her government response to the Select Committee on Estimates?

MS GALLAGHER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The government will be taking account of the independent report because it makes a lot more sense than the estimates report itself. In fact, I was very surprised. I think there is only one point in the estimates report—paragraph 1.10 of the estimates report—that even acknowledges that Mr Harris provided any analysis on the budget via the government.

We have looked at Mr Harris’s analysis and views and we will be taking into account the independent reports in framing the response to the Select Committee on Estimates, especially where it appears the committee has ignored almost all his views and analysis. It is extremely disappointing to observe that the Select Committee on Estimates, through its chair, has chosen to ignore the comments. Maybe ignore is a bit strong, but I cannot find the analysis that Mr Harris performed for the estimates committee actually reflected in the body of the estimates report. Mr Seselja, we are happy to give you leave to correct that if that is the case.

We will be looking at the comments by Mr Harris. He obviously spent a fair bit of time looking into the ACT government’s 2009-10 budget. I think he has acknowledged that the ACT government has a plan. He acknowledged that we did not have to make immediate responses to our revenue base, indeed our expenditure, because of the strength of our budget and because of the fiscal responsibility that this government has shown since 2001. He does not necessarily agree with the length of time that we take and have outlined in our budget plan, but he does agree that our budget can withstand the shock that it has endured and a longer recovery period.

This is in stark opposition, of course, the fact that we have a budget plan, to the opposition. The opposition has no plan on anything, and if there is one thing that we have learnt this week through the antics of this place, it is that the opposition stand for nothing and have no ideas about the future. Indeed, in that very reputable paper that we all avidly wait to be delivered to our offices every week, the City News—it is quite a famous journal in Assembly circles—there is an interesting article—

Opposition members interjecting—

MS GALLAGHER: When they start yelling you know that you have touched a raw nerve. I have got to them. Finally, 7½ minutes in, they start to interject. I must be doing something right.

Not only does the article acknowledge, but the man himself acknowledges that that is right; they have no plan for the budget. They had a plan. They went to an election

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .