Page 4486 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 23 November 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR SPEAKER: Order! That is a debatable point, and I am sure you will deal with it appropriately.
Mr Stanhope: On the point of order, Mr Speaker: the statement that Mr Mulcahy just made is quite clearly false.
MR SPEAKER: That is something you can raise in debate.
MR MULCAHY: As sensitive as the Chief Minister may be on these matters, the fact of the matter is that the record speaks for itself. It is a terrible reflection that the ACT has found itself isolated on these matters, to the point where even all the state Labor premiers have moved on and said, “We will progress this matter and leave him behind.” That troubles me, not particularly because of the Chief Minister’s sensitivities but because of the impact on the territory’s standing.
If we look at the ACT budget for 2005-06 we see commonwealth spending through our budget is $1.148 million, which is about 43 per cent of total ACT revenue. This is what is coming through the budget. It does not reflect the expenditures being made directly by the commonwealth in a host of different areas—their support for federal agencies, federal institutions and the enormous value of contracts let to the private sector in this town that saw the IT industry move here in larger numbers. Credit for that is often claimed by our colleagues opposite, but in fact it was a direct consequence of the federal government’s initiatives in these areas. We have seen the growth in law firms in this town as a consequence of the volume of work that has been outsourced by the commonwealth. So the commonwealth is a major player in the ACT.
Many people here draw their livelihood either through direct employment or through federal government contracts that are let in this city. They play an important part in our overall economic growth. It would trouble me if we were going to see the string of battles continue. In the limited time available I will not be able to detail them all. This quarrelsome approach is now characteristic of the way the Chief Minister conducts business in the territory. It is regrettable for the ACT.
We have seen the same position echoed by the industrial relations minister in her battles over skills-training funding. There is no attempt to recognise the generosity that has been afforded, but always criticism: not enough, not enough being done. If that is how you are negotiating, it is not a good way to expect people to improve their position.
Mr Corbell has been less than thrilled with the wonderful progress that has been made at the Canberra airport because it contrasts with the cumbersome approach that has been a characteristic of his style as planning minister. We have seen the investment in the Canberra airport and the vision shown by Terry Snow delivering enormous benefits in high-quality accommodation. The Chief Minister has been happy to claim some reflected credit for that. The wonderful developments out there are an example of how things could be done in progressing planning matters.
The ACT, though, persists in being antagonistic. It cannot expect easy and practical resolution of differing points of view and responsibilities if we are going to always find ourselves in direct conflict with the commonwealth.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .