Page 1274 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 29 March 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Successive coalition and Labor governments have understood the economic value and efficiency of a centralised public service. The Chifley, Fraser and Hawke governments moved the CSIRO headquarters, the High Court of Australia and the Defence Signals Directorate respectively to Canberra. Even last year we saw the Turnbull government make the same consolidating move with the relocation of the Climate Change Authority.
Both major parties agree that it makes sense for the public service to be close to the people and the stakeholders they work to support. It has been proven time and time again that the establishment of public service agencies in the capital city eliminates the transaction costs associated with decentralised services. The relocation of public service departments and agencies from Canberra to other cities does not carry an economic benefit to either the commonwealth or the ACT.
The 2016 Australian Senate estimates hearings heard that the federal government committed $25.6 million alone to pay for the expenses associated with moving the APVMA from Canberra to Armidale. This figure includes the cost of office fit-outs, flights between Armidale and Canberra for workers and a 15 per cent salary increase for the workers who agreed to move to Armidale to keep their jobs.
The federal government’s own cost-benefit analysis of the relocation determined that relocating the APVMA would deliver a $157 million hit to the local Canberra economy. A cost of $157 million to the ACT is outrageous, and the government will continue to oppose this negative hit on our city.
The continued diversification of the ACT economy places Canberra and the local region in a sound economic position. The public, private and small business sectors all contribute to the health of our economy, and it is vital that each of these sectors is adequately supported by government, both locally and federally.
Unfortunately, the Turnbull government does not see the public service as an asset to the commonwealth; rather, the Turnbull government is determined to make as many cuts to jobs and resources, regardless of the negative economic and social impacts.
The APVMA’s movement has been opposed in many ways, including by the staff at the APVMA, local industry stakeholders and industry groups saying that their capacity will be diminished. This advice all went to the minister at the time, and it continued with the now minister for agriculture, Barnaby Joyce. The minister was advised by Ms Arthy, the CEO of the APVMA, that the number of staff who did not want to transfer would mean that they would be left with so few existing staff it would be very difficult for the organisation to meet its statutory obligations. The CEO was not alone in her concerns. The Veterinary Association, the National Farmers Federation, and CropLife Australia all made statements that a move would post a significant disruption to industry.
In May 2016, just before the government entered caretaker period, a cost-benefit analysis of the move was commissioned from Ernst & Young. On 10 June 2016, in the midst of the federal election campaign, it was announced that the APVMA was to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video