Page 1443 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 14 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is a timely motion that Ms Porter has put on the notice paper, and we thank her for it. Again it allows us to have a real discussion about the state of the ACT. I think the amendment that I have moved is perhaps a more realistic version of what the Labor Party seeks to do through Ms Porter’s motion.
We agree with paragraphs (a) and (b). The federal budget handed down last night will have a direct and long-lasting impact on the economy of the ACT. I do not think anybody doubts that. This side of the house has always lamented job losses, unlike the other side of the house, who saw them in economic terms of fiscal consolidation. What was it that was said—that, as a direct result of federal Labor’s policy, 14,457 jobs were going. I think that was the number.
Let us look at the numbers from last night of 16½ thousand jobs. Some 90 per cent of them are job cuts from the Labor Party. I think you could make a fair case that the other 10 per cent are a consequence of the general mismanagement of Labor as well. So let us have no doubt about this. These are Labor’s job cuts. I think it is a shame that the economy under Labor got to such an extent that these job cuts were seen as necessary at all.
Let us face it: people do not get sacked when there is a surplus. When you have a downturn, possibly leading to recession, which thankfully Australia avoided in the GFC, this is what happens. It is a shame that this has happened, and it happened on the Labor Party’s watch. It happened when those opposite were very quiet and hiding behind economic terms instead of taking the federal Labor government to task.
It was interesting that at the breakfast this morning Andrew Leigh got caught out. Andrew Leigh said he could not find anything to support in the budget. Bruce Billson got up and said, “That is interesting, because, Andrew Leigh, when you were studying at Harvard,”—I think it was for his doctorate—“you were actually in favour of a co-payment.” The laughter in the room and the embarrassed look on Dr Leigh’s face showed how badly he had been caught out. Labor has been caught out on these losses. The same was the case in 1996 when there were job losses which were also unfortunate. It was about cleaning up Labor’s mess. So let us have no doubt about it.
The other thing we need to keep in mind, as set out in paragraph (d) of my amendment, is that, unlike other jurisdictions, we still receive billions of dollars worth of employment in the ACT thanks to the federal government. This is perhaps still part of the problem. When Kate Carnell came to office in 1995 the ACT budget was tracking very poorly because of the excesses and the failure of the then Follett government to control their spending. They flooded the land market and they killed house prices in the ACT.
It certainly did not get better, when Howard was elected, for a couple of years, but have no doubt that local Labor contributed to the troubles that this city went through in the late 90s. And that is the problem. There is no acknowledgement from those opposite that they contributed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video