Page 1856 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 19 August 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
the unemployed, as shown by cutting off unemployment benefits after nine months - a typical "frightpack" proposition. Madam Speaker, industrial relations chaos can be expected under the "frightpack" options supported by the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Party. They clearly have a Thatcherite, Luddite view of industrial relations. Increased costs, and hence lower profits and employment levels, would result from the GST.
Madam Speaker, it cannot be refuted that the initiatives announced last night in the budget, coupled with what I consider are the far-reaching and far-thinking initiatives taken by this Government and the Cabinet, show that the Opposition should never be allowed to govern this Territory. Given what they would do, I would suggest that they never be allowed to govern this country.
MR MOORE (4.48): If Mr Lamont had spoken a few more words one would have had to test him for relevance, considering that the subject of this matter of public importance discussion has nothing to do with the governance of this Territory. Rather, it is, "The positive effect on employment and social reforms contained in the 1992-93 Commonwealth Budget". I would have expected that the Leader of the Opposition would have been very keen to take the opportunity to rap Labor over the knuckles. This is a perfect opportunity to put the 1992-93 Commonwealth budget in an historical perspective. To many people 10 years ago a Labor government was a promise of one most important thing. The one reason why people were prepared to vote Labor was that they believed that Labor would provide employment. Employment is what this matter of public importance is about. Employment is the most significant factor in terms of the way people live and in terms of ensuring that social reform can take place.
What has Labor done for employment? At the tenth hour, in the tenth year, they turn around and give us a budget that supposedly provides for a few extra jobs. But what does it really do in terms of employment? You still have 10 per cent unemployment. Why do you have 10 per cent unemployment? It is because Labor has not been able to deliver the goods after 10 years.
Mr Berry: How would you do it, Michael?
MR MOORE: Give us a chance. I will get to that, Mr Berry. I would have done a hell of a lot better than that.
Mr Lamont: Zero population growth; negative; cut them off; no kids; do not give them jobs; force them out.
MR MOORE: Mr Lamont interjects about zero population growth. Had he a real sense of our environmental prospects, he would have that as a long-term aim as well. Of course, Mr Lamont's idea of a long-term aim is about two months. We learnt from a Four Corners program the other night that about 80 per cent of the wealth earned under Reagan economics in the US went to about one per cent of the people. If we were to look at the same statistics in Australia under a Labor government - it is shame on a Labor government, and I imagine that many of the members who are sitting here feel the overwhelming shame of this - there is a similar story, although probably not to the same extreme, because the one thing that Labor failed to do over the last 10 years is to successfully tax the very, very wealthy. We see the result of this. Unfortunately, the reason is that they are concerned about mates. Who are their mates? Who are the mates of the people who really made the decisions in Labor? The Kerry Packers and the Alan Bonds. The mates were the real problem.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .