Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2021 Week 12 Hansard (Tuesday, 23 November 2021) . . Page.. 3525 ..


have to seriously ask. We did not hear any of that sophisticated analysis. All we heard was jingoism and slogans from Mr Hanson.

This policy and other Greens’ policies set out where government expenditure would be better directed. The policy itself highlights key areas where redirecting money would actually result in improved defence outcomes. An increase in foreign aid spending, especially in the area of climate resilience, will assist in reducing regional pressures. The policy proposes to increase our aid spending to 0.7 per cent of gross national income, an amount equivalent to what other developed countries such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Denmark spend. This fulfils our moral responsibility as well as our obligations and strategic interests to provide support to disaster areas that need it most.

The Greens recognise the need to act on the threat of climate change in our region, to alleviate suffering and solve human problems before they become military matters. This is why the policy also proposes to commit $1.6 billion per year in climate finance and, in recognition of how important aid is to many of these issues, the policy also proposes to establish an independent oversight agency and to reinstate a minister for international development and the Pacific. It is a plan with a clear purpose and pathway.

I did crack a wry grin when I read Mr Hanson’s motion because I have lost count of the number of times he has walked into this place and critiqued me particularly, but the Greens generally, for bringing forward matters that canvass national issues but also have a local impact. He has been so derisory in commenting on those notions. He has never entered into the content of the discussion; he has just come in here and poured scorn on us for daring to raise these issues. So I hope this is a turning point, where Mr Hanson recognises that it is relevant, because I think this is a matter that should be discussed in this place and I look forward to this not being a political stunt today but a recognition that these are relevant matters.

Let me touch on one other matter: jobs in Canberra. One of our other policies proposes to create 17,000 more public sector jobs over four years. It is the Liberal Party that has gutted the public service. It has hollowed it out with recruitment caps, efficiency dividends and siphoning the money off to the big four firms who now get so many more consultancies. Coincidentally—perhaps not coincidentally, but it is an interesting reckoning—their donations to the Liberal Party at a federal level increased dramatically in light of this hollowing out of the public service. So when it comes to protecting jobs in Canberra, it is the Greens who have got the clear policies to do so. (Time expired.)

MR HANSON (Murrumbidgee) (4.06): At the outset I say, “Well done,” to Mr Rattenbury, because he has recognised that this is a relevant debate, and he has recognised this is an important debate. I think it is fair to say that he and I are on very different sides of this debate, but he has had the guts to back the policy of the Greens and to advocate for it. Whether we agree or disagree—and I obviously disagree—he actually did that. So without relitigating the substantive issues that Mr Rattenbury has raised, most of which I disagree with, I say good on him for having the fight and for


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video