Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 3 Hansard (9 April) . . Page.. 795 ..

MR SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Mrs Littlewood proposing that a matter of public importance be submitted to the Assembly for discussion, namely:

That the ACT Legislative Assembly express its concern at the Federal Parliament's paternalistic approach to this Assembly and the people of Canberra - as typified by the Andrews Bill and the failure of the Prime Minister to use the Lodge as his official residence.

MRS LITTLEWOOD (3.53): Mr Speaker, I rise today to express concern at the treatment that has been and is being handed out to this Assembly and the people of Canberra by the Federal Parliament - the big brother knows best approach. In 1978 a referendum took place on the issue of self-government and, as we know, the resounding result was no; 63 per cent of Canberrans were against the idea. Despite that result, the Federal Parliament decided that the ACT would have self-government, and therefore the Commonwealth passed the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act in 1988, with the first sitting of this Assembly taking place on 11 May 1989.

Here we are, almost 10 years later: Canberra, a city developed as a Rolls-Royce model, a national showcase, the seat of government, a place for all Australians to be proud of, self-government at work, democracy at work. It is a bit of a joke, really. Let us look at the record. Just what has happened over the past 10 years? The frequent kicks in the head we have received from consecutive - I stress that - Federal parliaments have done little to assist our fledgling self-governing Canberra. Do we have self-government or are we just a poor excuse for hiving off both moral and economic responsibility by the Federal Government? Just what has the Federal Parliament done to assist us, its offspring? I suggest very little. I equate the actions of our Federal colleagues with those of a parent who has abandoned its child. Like a child who leaves home for the first time, the knowledge that home is there is not only a comfort but, in some cases, almost an economic necessity.

How has our parent the Federal Parliament assisted us? Since self-government, our general purpose funding has declined by $194m. During the Federal Labor Government reign, there were 18,507 retrenchments in the Australian Public Service. I will repeat that for those people who believe that Mr Keating did not do that: During Labor's reign, under both Hawke and Keating, there were over 18,000 retrenchments of public servants. In fact, retrenchments went from 32 in 1982-83, to 3,084 in 1988-89 and to 5,612 in 1994-95. Under the Federal Liberal Government, I understand that retrenchments are running at 5,000. I think you will agree, Mr Speaker, that the cumulative effect of these retrenchments has been of very little help to a new city endeavouring to find its way.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .