Page 2255 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 9 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Mr Seselja: On a point of order on relevance, Mr Assistant Speaker, as much as we always enjoy the lectures from Ms Gallagher, I do not think her talking about it is actually relevant to the motion at hand.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Thank you very much. I understand the point of order. Chief Minister, would you please try to resist the temptation.
MS GALLAGHER: I will—perhaps as relevant as the major part of Mr Seselja’s address for 12 minutes. I think if you did any word search you would find “Labor” was the most frequently used word, which does not actually appear in the motion. I think probably “federal member” and “liar” would come after that—again, not representative of the motion before the Assembly for debate today.
It is also interesting to note there is no contribution from the Liberal opposition around solutions or ideas or any preparedness to roll up their sleeves and actually work to ensure the economic stability of this city. There are some challenging times ahead, and I think it is beholden on the ACT Assembly to look at every avenue where we can work together to ensure confidence is maintained in the city. I suggest that a presentation like the one Mr Seselja just gave would not contribute to any reasonable level of confidence going forward.
This motion today is important. The government will support it, but we will be moving an amendment, and I now move the amendment that has been circulated in my name:
Omit paragraphs (3), (4) and (5), substitute:
“(3) notes that the Chief Minister has written to the Prime Minister seeking an urgent meeting to discuss the impact on the ACT of the Federal Budget and the need to ensure that a disproportionate burden does not fall on the ACT economy;
(4) supports efforts to assist the local economy, respond with a responsible ACT budget strategy and to work with local business and community leaders to ensure we maximise private sector opportunities and minimise hardship for affected workers.”.
The amendment makes some sensible changes, noting what has already been done. My main problem with the motion is not its content but the way it is written—“demands of the commonwealth government, demands of federal politicians”. It makes us look a little silly as an Assembly. The amendment I have moved does not diminish the motion at all but, indeed, seeks to perhaps be a bit more parliamentary in our drafting—“supports efforts to assist the local economy” to deal with the outcomes of the federal budget and the ACT budget and to work with us around the ACT budget strategy.
The commonwealth government is important to our economy—it is our Rio Tinto; it is our BHP. The advantages for all of us in terms of prosperity, educational attainment and opportunities for the development of the private sector businesses serving the needs of government have been substantial. We also understand that maintaining
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video