Page 2982 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
for the economic diversification of the ACT, we actually have a falling employment share in the private sector of the ACT economy.
I raised with the Treasurer during the estimates hearings the divide between public and private sector employment in the ACT. This follows analysis that shows that the proportion of the private sector in the ACT had fallen from 59 per cent in 2001-02 to 51 per cent in 2008-09. This is a dramatic reduction in the strength of the local private sector. If we are going to have diversification, if we are going to share the tax burden and if we are going to bring the deficit back under control and remain in surplus into the future, then of course growth in the private sector should be an important part of that.
But we have got a Treasurer who said in this place that she particularly was not interested in diversifying the sector and, in fact, did not believe that it was possible. That is clearly reflected in this document. We are not going to see a serious attempt by this government to diversify the ACT economy. Hence, the dramatic fall from 59 per cent to 51 per cent over the last decade. Its failure to encourage the growth of the private sector is an indictment of the actions of this government and now, in particular, this Treasurer.
The Treasurer has now provided an answer to explain the government’s approach to this important matter. I suggest that the answer leaves a lot to be desired. For example, the Treasurer says that private sector employment increased from 49.7 per cent in the May quarter 2009 to 52.8 per cent in the February quarter 2010. This is a dramatic increase in an economic indicator—almost three points—that typically does not vary as much as this in a short period. I find it difficult to accept that such a substantial change took place in less than one year, let alone in one quarter.
The problem for the Treasurer, of course, is that it was 59 per cent in 2001-02. So even if we accept her 52 per cent, it is still less than what they inherited and what they should have worked upon. We do not have enough time to develop this theme further at this point. But I will be taking up this matter in due course.
This year, of course, for the first time, there was an opportunity for what was called a technical briefing before the estimates committee hearings proper. I commend the Treasurer for this initiative. It enabled committee members to understand some of the technical issues relating to the budget before the examination of the budget itself. I trust this initiative will be continued in subsequent budgets. It was a very useful opportunity to deal with some of the issues that would have been an unnecessary distraction from the formal hearings of the estimates committee. But it does bring us to the budget itself and what the Treasurer has delivered.
This is a budget that is not fiscally responsible, delivering massive deficits, despite record revenues and the recovery and despite the fact that we should and could be in surplus if this Treasurer had done her work properly. The problem for us is that we deal with numbers that are, in many ways, just unbelievable.
Of course, there was the Treasury recall day. The Treasurer did not attend because she was absent at that time, but the officials were brought back—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video