Page 2976 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 August 2013
has been growth in the public service and growth in jobs in the ACT? Our view is that this is a good thing for the ACT; we are pleased to see the proportion of commonwealth public servants in the ACT has increased, and that is why amendment 2 of my amendments reaffirms our support and respect for both the ACT and the federal public services. We note that both have grown in recent times, and that point needs to be acknowledged, and it is in the amendments I put forward. The only party arguing for a reduction in the number of public servants in Australia and in the ACT is the federal Liberal Party. They are the only people arguing for that.
Public service numbers have increased under Labor from 143,000 to 168,000. That is not a cut. It does not matter how many times those opposite wish to argue the other case, there is no world in which 168,000 is less than 143,000 when it comes to public service positions. The only party arguing to cut jobs, 12,000 as a starting point, is the Liberal Party. That is clear. The facts are clear and on the table. That is what these amendments do, and they put the lie to the gross hypocrisy of those opposite. The Leader of the Opposition is showing more cheek than a sumo wrestler today with this motion.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before Mr Rattenbury starts, I remind members that if they want to make a point of order, when they stand they should say that that is what they are doing. Otherwise it appears that they are jumping to their feet to do something else—maybe talk to the amendments or I am not quite sure what. If members want to make a point of order, they should say so.
Also, Mr Hanson, would you listen to Mr Rattenbury in silence. Your interjections are becoming a little bit more than is desirable. In fact, I do not want you to interject at all during Mr Rattenbury’s address, so please remain silent. Mr Rattenbury.
Mr Hanson: It will be a struggle, but I will try, Madam Deputy Speaker.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do not start before Mr Rattenbury even begins. Mr Rattenbury.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (11.33): This motion moved by Mr Hanson today really did strike me with some surprise after I received the documents from administration and procedure yesterday and after the shellacking that Mr Hanson dished out to me last week when I sought to raise a federal issue here. He came in here all fired up and puffed up and gave me the most extraordinary spray about my attempt to debate an issue that I thought was of significance but that Mr Hanson thought was inappropriate.
His political hypocrisy is such that last week he could say that the issue of asylum seekers was clearly a federal issue and not in the purview of this Assembly. This week not only does Mr Hanson move a motion about federal issues but also we have his colleague Mr Doszpot whose motion about federal issues comes up next.
As it happens, I think it is quite appropriate that these matters are raised in the Assembly today. I am quite happy to discuss the substance of them, but we see the extraordinary level of hypocrisy from Mr Hanson and the sheer lack of shamelessness