Page 498 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 5 March 2008

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .


but it does not lead them to make cuts to such important things as the ALP memorial in Queensland. Apparently the inflation risk is not so serious that a memorial at the site of the Labor Party’s birthplace—at a cost of $2.6 million—will make any difference to inflation. Apparently that outlay can be justified while 33 members of the NCA lose their jobs, key national institutions suffer job losses and programs and services are cut back.

Let us compare the way the federal government is treating the people of Canberra with the way it is treating its Labor mates and supporting memorials to itself. Slashing the budget of the NCA, in particular, will affect tourism. People will lose their jobs, and that will have a flow-on effect for the economy. Cutting iconic NCA programs will have a negative impact on Canberra. I do not think there is any other spin to put on it. We know that Australia Day Live is under threat. We know that Tropfest is potentially under threat. Access to the Carillon and Blundell’s Cottage will be cut back as a result of these cuts.

It is well and good for Senator Lundy to say that these cuts are really just designed to bring about maximum attention. The reality is that when you impose cuts on an organisation that has core statutory obligations the only course open to them is to cut jobs. They will be forced to slash 33 of their 87 jobs. Senator Kate Lundy’s remarks were quite disingenuous. Her attacks have been particularly offensive to the people of Canberra and those within the NCA. Her description of the NCA as a bloated organisation highlights, I think, that this is not about making savings; this is about payback. This is the payback that Senator Kate Lundy and others within the ACT Labor Party have lobbied for. They have given the incoming Rudd government the excuse to make cuts. They have opened the door for them to slash this organisation.

I will be interested to hear the Chief Minister’s comments. He needs to say whether he agrees with Senator Lundy that this is a bloated organisation. Does he agree with her assessment, in which she shows absolutely no regard or concern not only for the Canberrans who will be losing their jobs as a result of these cuts but also for the impact that this will have on the broader ACT community. We know that these cuts are just the beginning. I believe that it was the Chief Minister in this place who actually suggested that this is just the beginning. In answer to a question he said:

… it needs to be borne in mind and always remembered that this cut was part of a package of $650 million of cuts around Australia—

He goes on to say:

Well, it is only the start.

Of course, we will see further cuts, but the interesting thing will be how the ACT Labor Party actually stands up to its federal colleagues. In August 1996, the then Liberal Chief Minister criticised the Liberal federal government for cuts to Canberra. She was not afraid to stand up for Canberra and say, “Regardless of whether it is a Liberal government or a Labor government federally, these cuts are hurting our constituents, these cuts are hurting Canberra and the government should be stood up to.”


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .