Page 1557 - Week 04 - Thursday, 29 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
MR HARGREAVES: Treasurer, are there any alternative approaches the government could take with investments in infrastructure?
MR BARR: Yes, there are alternatives; there are always alternatives when it comes to investment policies and decisions that governments make from budget to budget. We could have, for example, listened to some who are professing that investment in public education, for example, is throwing good money after bad. We could have listened to those who suggested that it would be much more preferable to invest in non-productive infrastructure, to invest in projects like painting grass green or invest in projects like futsal slabs, or invest in projects that have demonstrated long-term economic benefit for the territory. I cite, for example, futsal slabs in Commonwealth Park as an example of long-term infrastructure investment.
Perhaps another example of an alternative approach to infrastructure investment would be to shovel bucket loads of cash into things like V8 supercar races and then have the Auditor-General come back and say that it was the biggest, most monumental failure in terms of investment policy—overstated the benefits, understated the costs. An appalling record of infrastructure investment.
We could contrast that with the approach of, say, building a new hospital with the alternative, which is blowing hospitals up, which is exactly what we have seen from those opposite. That is their approach to infrastructure investment, Mr Speaker. It is a series of poor choices, and we have seen the track record. This government invests in health and education; those opposite blow up hospitals and invest in useless V8 supercar races that cost the territory economy significantly, and have an appalling track record at trying to pick winners. Those are the choices that we face—investment in productive infrastructure that supports education and the health of the community or investment in frivolous vanity projects like we saw from those opposite.
MR SPEAKER: Mr Smyth, a supplementary.
MR SMYTH: Minister, if the government is so good at delivering infrastructure spend, why is there $246 million in this year’s capital works, 30 per cent of the budget, being re-profiled?
MR BARR: Because the government is delivering the largest ever infrastructure program in the history of the territory. You guys were flat out delivering $60 million a year—flat out delivering $60 million a year. And let us not forget that even within a $60 million program there were consistently rollovers from those opposite when they were in government. So their infrastructure record is paltry compared to the ACT Labor government’s record. We have been delivering $600 million worth of new capital programs—consistently record levels of infrastructure investment for the territory.
Opposition members interjecting—
MR SPEAKER: Thank you, the minister is answering the question now. Let us hear him in silence.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video