Page 3423 - Week 11 - Thursday, 15 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
federal government, going by Mr Hockey’s example, is realising it has to look as though it is doing something.
However, with the two parties meeting in the middle—there is still a gap but I think the two major federal party offerings are coming closer together—the Greens are now the only party that has, as a policy, as an end desire, the abolition of Work Choices. Before we hear from Mr Seselja and others that this is an irresponsible policy and a good reason for not having the Greens holding the balance of power in the Senate, let me remind people that Senator Brown has also announced that the Greens would use their position, if they have the balance of power in the Senate, to try and persuade the federal government, whichever party is in government, to work towards fairer outcomes. That does not mean blocking supply or taking irresponsible action.
If the Greens win the balance of power in the Senate, it would be a very visible action and it would be an excellent opportunity to show that the Greens have the welfare of the country at heart and are there to keep governments accountable, to make sure people feel they have a policy that works. That is something they have not felt for a while, since the coalition has had the balance of power in the Senate as well as in the House of Representatives.
I think more people are realising that. They are realising that the kind of Labor government that is being offered by Mr Rudd is more like the “coalition-lite” and that people who want a Labor Party that remembers its roots in social justice and workers’ rights will be thinking when they cast their vote that the Greens are probably the best bet. Given the make-up of the Labor Party, its factionalism and its rules, the Greens are probably the best bet for achieving that.
Members interjecting–
MR SPEAKER: Order! Dr Foskey has the floor.
DR FOSKEY: We appear to have descended into a sort of rabble-like Assembly today. Maybe things will pick up later on. I thank the Assembly for raising this issue today. I think it will be the key point of difference which voters will take to the federal election. It probably is important to be discussing it today. It is clearly a point of dissension here. Being a federal issue, it is not one which normally comes up on our agenda, but, given our preoccupations, I thank the Assembly for the chance to discuss it.
MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra—Leader of the Opposition) (10.57): In joining this debate, let me say that this was a very interesting inquiry. I am not going to comment much in relation to that. A lot has been said in relation to the need for it and the way it seemed to meander along for so many months—indeed, years. I think reference has been made to the fact that only 14 people actually appeared before the committee and to difficulties in even finding people to appear. That makes you think that people in Canberra are pretty happy with the full employment we have and the fact that we are the richest state or territory in terms of per capita income.
I have lived here all my life apart from about three years. I have not seen the territory going so well before—as a result of a series of very good federal government policies.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .