Page 850 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 20 March 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
reputation is at stake. The flow-on effect of that is to Australia’s international trade. The Senate inquiry recommended that the federal government prioritise a fit-for-purpose and stable workforce over any decentralisation policy.
What I have just told members about the findings of the inquiry would make any reasonable person stop and think. You would probably think, “Maybe that is not such a good idea. Maybe decentralisation is not working in the way we intended.” But what does the federal government do? Does it listen to evidence? Does it recognise the impacts? Does it adhere to the recommendations of the committee? No, it just doubles down. Cue the slow clap.
So who is the next target? It is none other than the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. Last week, funnily enough mere weeks before an election, the federal government announced that they will shift 76, or a quarter, of the agency’s staff to a number of regional towns within the river network’s southern basin. This comes just two months after the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission report highlighted grave concerns about negligence and maladministration within the authority.
It beggars belief, Madam Assistant Speaker; it beggars belief that the federal government would further disrupt an agency that is already plagued with problems, that should be concentrating on fixing those problems. This is a federal government that finds a problem and then somehow finds a way to make it worse. Of course, in doing so, they happen to conveniently forget that Canberra is itself located within the Murray-Darling Basin.
It is funny how the coalition conveniently forgot that Canberra is the biggest city in the basin and that we deliberately serve as a neutral location for the authority to ensure that the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia’s most extensive river system, is managed in the interests of all Australians. Griffith, Mildura and Murray Bridge will all share in the pool of positions if the move goes ahead, plus a town yet to be named. It is safe to say that this fourth town will serve the interests of a politician first and all other considerations second, including the efficiency of the agency and the best interests of Australians whose lives are affected by the health of the river network.
As we discussed during the last sitting period, there are so many of those Australians who we need to be looking after and it is incumbent on all of the jurisdictions that are part of this basin. It is just not good enough. It is not good enough for these public servants. It is not good enough for the MDBA and it is not good enough for Canberra.
As I have said in the past, the original rationale for decentralisation was a noble one: creating careers and confidence in regional communities. But, as I have also emphasised, the policy position that the coalition government has taken is not about creating jobs. It is about moving jobs. It is a complex manoeuvre and not one without severe consequences.
Surely there has to be a better way. There is a better way. Instead of dismissing Canberra, our federal politicians should actually be looking closely at us. The ACT government has continued to protect and, importantly, create Canberra jobs. We
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video