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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 7 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 1992 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

The only person who has ever suggested that Acton Peninsula should be used as a development site is Rosemary Follett. Those who have been in this house for a couple of terms will remember that those opposite seemed to support a proposal that would have used Acton Peninsula for a medium- to high-density housing development. That is the only basis upon which the land could have been developed. "Developed" means "sold". This side of the house did not believe that Acton Peninsula should be sold for any development purpose. We believed that it should have been used as it is to be used - as a site for something that is important to all Australians and certainly all Canberrans, as the National Museum is. We went from ageing buildings on Acton Peninsula to a National Museum and $130m worth of development. The other site was an ACTEW dump. This week we will announce the winners of the ideas competition, and we believe that we will have some movement on that site before Christmas. That sounds to me like a pretty good step in the right direction.

Mr Berry spoke about the ABS figures that were looked at in the newspaper this morning. Mr Whitecross earlier made similar comments. They both seemed to doubt the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures. The Australian Bureau of Statistics surveys one in every 75 residents in the ACT, as I understand it. That compares to one in 277 in New South Wales or one in 200 in Australia. In fact, one in 75 is the highest level, along with the Northern Territory and Tasmania, of any sample taken. Those opposite relied on these figures when they were in government. It is funny that now we are in government they somehow think there is something wrong with them. They are certainly the best figures we have. They are certainly the best figures that exist.

All those opposite are doing is doubting the Bureau of Statistics; but, as I said this morning, if they doubt the Bureau of Statistics, why do we not look at the Social Security figures, the figures for the people who actually pick up benefits every fortnight? Mr Whitecross used to work in that particular department, and I am sure he has every faith in DSS figures. The ABS figures show, I think, 11,600 people unemployed - a significant reduction over the last few months; in fact, a reduction of 100 since we came to government. The ABS figures list fewer people as unemployed now than when we came to government two years ago. There are also significantly more jobs in the system, over 3,000 from memory, since we came to government - not in the last few months, but over the last two years. The unemployment rate now is lower than it was when we came to government. In fact, even the participation rate is slightly higher than, or about the same as, it was when we came to government. I think that is a pretty fair go, in fact a very impressive record. I was interested that Mr Berry said that we had done nothing to achieve these wonderful figures. I have to say that we have done a lot. A lot of those things have been based upon - - -

Mr Berry: You got rid of 1,600 public servants.

MRS CARNELL: Mr Berry earlier made the comment about sacking public servants. Not one public servant has been sacked. In fact, there are more jobs. These are not my figures but Bureau of Statistics figures. There are more people in work, predominantly full-time work, than when we came to government, and fewer people unemployed than when we came to government. You just cannot argue with that. It is just a reality. More jobs and fewer people unemployed - it is as simple as that.

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