Mr. Robb has once again said it is possible to cut government waste. Mr. Robb said this while defending his bogus pre 2010 election audit.
I would be surprised if any government did not attempt to keep waste to a minimum.
What is much harder to decide, what waste is and what is prudent spending.
Not spending can lead to greater waste. Health and Education over the last few years is a good example of this. The Labor Government has increased spending in these two areas many hardly made a dent in the backlog of maintenance and upgrading that is necessary.
Spending the money over the preceding couple of decades would have been cheaper and wiser. The adage is still true, a stitch in time save nine.
When parties like the Liberals talk about waste, they are really talking about their priorities and ideology.
Mr. Rudd showed how spending in the GFC can work. Other countries went down this track with less success. Most were too late and relied on such measures as tax cuts.
The amount of stimulus money is not an important component. What is important is how quickly the money begins circulating.
The Coalition problem was not the amount of money. They said they would spend nearly as much. They did not agree with who got the money and how it was distributed.
They wanted to rely on precedence by doing this by tax cuts. This has always failed, and led to costing more in the end.
You have to keep people in work. It is too late once the unemployment rate is climbing. The figures so, that after every economic downturn since the middle of the last century, it has taken longer to get unemployment down. It costs much more to get people back to work.
Mr. Rudd, firstly by the $900 hand out and pension rises to low and middle-income earners ensured the money was spent immediately. This kept the economy moving until the second phrase was begun. This included spending money on schools, roads and other government activities. All spheres of government were involved in this spending. Further money was put into circulation through the Insulation Scheme and the many investigations have shown it to be money well spent. I know my home is warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer.
Money was given for emergency housing and many other worthwhile activities.
The Labor government did not make the mistake of withdrawing the assistance too early.
Yes, when money is spent quickly, it can cost a little more to build the infrastructure. This needs to be balance against the money that the stimulus saved.
Mr. Rudd and Mr. Swan have proved stimulus can work, if put in place early and giving money to those who spend it immediately.
Now, Mr, Robb, and those in his party claim this is money wasted. I do not agree with them. If they had their way, more would have been spent in the end with much more damage caused to society.
We did not have massive unemployment and bankruptcies. We have schools, parks, roads, and new ports among other things that we can be proud.
Our economy is strong. We have little debt. Our pensioners are receiving pensions much higher than they have in the past. People have reduced their debt and are saving more than they have for decades.
There are extensive opportunities for our young to be trained to meet the workforce of today and tomorrow.
Now, this could be the most wasteful government ever, but I ask one to nominate what money should not have been spent. Nominate what you believe the next government can cut. I would like to know why you consider it waste.
What I am asking, what is government waste?
Maybe some might see much of what this government has done, as being worthwhile. If so, what is their most worthwhile endeavour?