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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Wednesday, 30 June 2004) . . Page.. 3020 ..

It is interesting, in particular in the Sensis report, that the actual policies of the ACT government have been rated as one of the lowest in the country. The government’s approval rating has fallen from 18 per cent to 12 per cent—and that is an indictment. People do not believe that this government has a plan for the future or has any intention of delivering a plan for the future. There are geographic pockets that need to be addressed, both in age group and socioeconomic areas, that are not being met by this government. We had a debate last night on the budget. I said then and I will say it again that this budget and the budgets of the last three years have squandered a tremendous opportunity to take—

MR SPEAKER: You are reflecting on a vote.

MR SMYTH: No. I am dragging out the comments that I made last night that were not reflecting on a vote. I am not reflecting on a vote at all. We have accepted and passed the budget. I believe that, with the large surpluses we have had in the last couple of years, we have squandered the opportunity to drought-proof the ACT economy. It is not enough to say, “We have a report that says we are doing okay. We have a plan that we think will do something”. You have to look at what you are delivering.

The opposition will support the motion welcoming the release of the latest Hudson Report. If the best the government can do is have a motion that welcomes the release of the Hudson Report, we will welcome its release. The real question is: what will the government do in the future to reduce unemployment levels, particularly among persons aged 15 to 19 years? What will the government do to improve employment for older Canberrans? Men over the age of 40 often have difficulty getting jobs. They are seen to be at the end of their useful life. We are increasingly asking older Canberrans to stay in the work force. Where are the strategies to make that occur? There will be an amendment moved to the motion and I will save the rest of my comments for that.

MS TUCKER (11.16): I thank Mr Hargreaves for raising the issue of employment in Canberra. I have a similar response to Mr Smyth in that I do not have a problem with welcoming the Hudson Report on employment expectations. Looking at the Hudson Report, the point has to be made that this is about projection. Positive projections are largely driven by the federal election and associated employment. I do not think it is something the ACT government can claim credit for particularly. The boom seems to be in the short-term consumption areas such as IT and telecommunications where highly skilled workers, often brought from interstate, do the work at an executive level. Skilled knowledge workers are at a premium.

I welcome the report, even though I am not quite sure that a particularly consistent performance has been projected at this point. As I said, with the influence of the federal election, I always raise a question about the nature of employment and who will be benefiting from it. I remind members of some comments that ACTCOSS made a year ago but which still stand. It said:

Labour mobility data tell us that Australia has a very mobile work force. It has often been argued that Canberra, with a high education attainment level, has a particularly mobile labour force which will move to where the jobs are if they become unemployed … It is ACTCOSS’ submission that this mobility makes the unemployment figures less robust. It would appear on anecdotal evidence that unemployed, skilled Canberrans move out of the area if they are unemployed,

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