Page 2961 - Week 08 - Thursday, 25 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
particularly in budget paper 3, about where the government sees the budget going and how the economy is going to perform in the next couple of years.
I would like to start with the reasonable request that was made of the government, through the Treasurer by the estimates committee, for a technical briefing on how the budget is put together—a non-confrontational briefing. It was not about politics; it was simply to tell us where you are coming from, how this works, where it all fits together. There were a number of new members on the estimates committee in particular who were interested in this briefing—and, unfortunately, it was denied. It was to seek appropriate information. It was to assist the process of understanding the budget. It was to provide some analysis of the budget so that we could understand.
The shame that it was denied I think is, again, symptomatic of the attitude of the Stanhope-Gallagher government towards openness and accountability. They say, “Work with us.” We have heard the Treasurer a number of times this week say, “Come on; work with us.” People actually asked for that to occur and it was thrown back at them: “No, you’ve had enough briefings. You can read the budget papers and you’ve got estimates coming.” The contradiction there is unfortunate and, if the Treasurer, for instance, is going to stand and say, “We want to work with you,” she should actually do it. It is easy enough to mouth the words when people make reasonable requests. Why don’t we see what we can do to make them happen?
The state of the economy, particularly the world economy, has, of course, a big influence on what happens here in Australia, and what happens in Australia influences the ACT. There has been an awful lot of commentary provided following all the budgets from all the jurisdictions across Australia. All jurisdictions had to cope with the fallout from the global economic crisis, and a critical factor that differentiates the responses of jurisdictions is whether they have a plan to guide the recovery from the effects of the economic slowdown. And we have emphasised that the Treasurer and the Stanhope-Gallagher government do not have such a plan.
It is clearly enunciated on page 19, their total plan, particularly for the current year, where we see in the chart at the bottom of page 19 that revenue assumptions and expenses for the year 2009-10 are simply zero. I think that summarises their plan. Yes, they say there is a plan there. But what is the activity? What are the outcomes? What can people expect from this years’ budget? The answer is there in black and white on page 19: absolutely zero.
All we have on the table to date is a prognostication of possible budget outcomes over the next few years and a revision of these following the federal budget. We get a broad notion of what borrowings might be undertaken for spending on infrastructure and we have got a commitment to consult with the community about the next budget. That is not really a plan for recovery. More particularly, there is little room for flexibility if the forecasts do not work out, if the growth rates that are predicted are not realised.
I note an article from Tuesday’s Canberra Times—indeed, all papers across the country carried similar articles—by David McClennan entitled “Gloomy tone in economic forecasts” and the first paragraph says it all:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .