Page 1993 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 15 May 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
what Joe Hockey is going to do as the alternate—and let us talk about the real issues of what is actually being brought forward in the budget. We see that the areas that are important to Australians and important to the future of this country are being resolved in the budget in a way that is simply bad news for the future of this country. My federal colleague Christine Milne described the outcome of the budget as producing a weaker, dumber, meaner Australia. I think when one works through some of the cuts and changes we have seen and the failure to tackle some of the long-term issues, like significant fossil fuel subsidies, one can understand why she made those comments.
Regarding the impact on Canberra, I think that between this budget and the prospect of a change of government things are certainly looking tough for Canberra and the ACT into the future. We have seen a significant reduction in the number of public service jobs. With the prospect of further cuts, as has been foreshadowed by the opposition and as we debated extensively in this chamber last week, the prospects for the territory are difficult. This city has been growing very rapidly in recent years and we face the prospect of a significant turnaround in that economic trend for the territory. That is going to be very difficult for the ACT government and for many people in Canberra who will find themselves, as we saw in 1996, having to really reassess their future, reassess whether they will stay in Canberra or whether they will move away. Those issues have been canvassed broadly in this chamber around the impact that is going to have on the territory in terms of the loss of economic activity and the loss of skills to this city. There is the impact on the social fabric. There are also the direct impacts that people will see through their personal loss of jobs and a reduction in the value of their houses. These things are very real for people in Canberra.
In some ways today’s motion is a tit-for-tat motion in response to last Wednesday’s debate about the prospect of a change in federal government and the stated policies of the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow treasurer around what they intend to do with the public service. I think we need to see that for what it is. That leaves the Assembly to debate these things in the way it wishes.
Looking at parts (1)(a) and (1)(b) of Mr Smyth’s motion, that is a particular narrative that the Liberal Party has and, I think, reflects some of the content of Tony Abbott’s little red book, so we will take it for what it is. At any objective level, one could sit here and say that each of these points is arguable. I am quite sure that Mr Barr or Ms Gallagher could stand up and put an alternative perspective on each of these, and certainly I would have a view on it. The narrative that the Liberal Party has on the federal carbon package, for example, fails to acknowledge that the Prime Minister did not win government in her own right and she was forced to negotiate for government. That means that there needs to be a level of compromise and negotiation. As a result of that, there is a federal carbon package. I know the Liberal Party struggles to deal with the concept that parties need to collaborate and work together, but that is actually what resulted in a carbon tax in this country. That is what I mean about each of the points in Mr Smyth’s motion being arguable; others will have different perspectives on them.
Nonetheless, what Mr Smyth has observed at the end of his motion—that the ACT budget has been moved from May to June to be able to more accurately reflect the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video