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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 5 Hansard (14 May) . . Page.. 1406 ..

MR WHITECROSS (continuing):

Another area Mrs Carnell has not talked about, because she never talks about it, is industry policy. What does the MTIA say about the Federal budget? It says that there is no mention of an industry strategy; that it would like to have seen export incentives, research and development incentives; and that opportunities are passing us by. That is what the MTIA says. It is not surprising. Mrs Carnell thinks a Federal budget with no industry strategy is a way of getting this economy going because she thinks she can get the economy going without an industry strategy too. These are the realities of what is in the Federal budget, what it means for Canberra, and why Mrs Carnell can be so enthusiastic about something that everybody else knows is bad news for Canberra.

Another feature of the Federal budget that has worrying implications for Canberra is the sale of government buildings. The sale of government buildings is fraught with dangers for the ACT. There are, of course, the risks of selling unoccupied buildings onto the market while there are private building owners who are busy trying to get their buildings let. That is the risk - the risk of wiping a lot of value off existing assets in the ACT while the Federal Government rushes to cash up for their own purposes.

But there are other dangers. For example, the sale of a building to a private building owner raises questions about at what standard that building will be maintained in the future. Will that building be maintained as a class A building, or will it be allowed to run down? When it is no longer the Federal Government's building, will they pay the same attention to the standard of the building? When they sell these buildings and when they sign the leases to lease back the buildings, will they ensure that the leases require that they be maintained as category A buildings? We should be insisting that they do, because that has long-term implications, not just for the working conditions of Canberrans, which is an important issue, but also for the construction industry in Canberra, who are responsible for maintaining those buildings to that standard.

It is only a matter of time before we start hearing people say, "Best practice" - we all know about best practice - "elsewhere is for office workers to be in category B buildings, not category A buildings; so let us downgrade a bit". It is vital that this working party ensures that Canberra is not sold short in the sale of these buildings. Personally, I do not think selling these buildings is the best idea; but, if they are going down that path, we have to make sure that Canberra is not sold short, that Canberra workers are not sold short, and that the Canberra construction industry is not sold short.

Another element of this budget that is of concern to Canberrans, although apparently not of concern to Mrs Carnell, is the implications for the standard of living of Canberrans. We know about the big things. We know about the job losses in the public sector and the implications for the lives of Canberrans from losing employment opportunities, from losing their jobs.

Mrs Carnell: I did not ever hear you say that about Paul Keating's reductions.

MR WHITECROSS: Mrs Carnell repeats a lie that she has told dozens of times in this place - I withdraw the word "lie" - that under the Labor Party the number of public servants reduced. It did not.

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