Page 3845 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 4 December 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
John Howard and the Liberal Party. So thank you, Mr Stefaniak, for the opportunity for me in this place to publicly congratulate Kevin Rudd and the Labor Party. The long journey of repair has commenced, and commenced most decisively yesterday, with the first action of Kevin Rudd, immediately upon being invested as the 26th Prime Minister of Australia, when he did something that John Howard did not have the moral courage, foresight or capacity to see as vital for the future of the world—namely, ratifying Kyoto.
The attitude which the Labor Party and Kevin Rudd take in relation to climate change is the same as ours. We are not interested in empty gestures. Indeed, on the last sitting day, we all remember Mr Stefaniak standing up and confirming that Gary Humphries’s last budget as Chief Minister included $180,000 for greenhouse gas initiatives—namely, funding to change the light bulbs at Macarthur House. That was the climate change strategy of the previous government.
MR SPEAKER: Come to the subject matter of the question.
MR STANHOPE: In relation to cuts, certainly Kevin Rudd and Lindsay Tanner have given an indication that they will establish an expenditure review committee; that the expenditure review committee will look at all government expenditure within the territory; and that they will, of course, respond to the priorities of a Rudd federal Labor government. And of course they would; it is what every government does. They look at their priorities, they look at the priorities of the people of Australia, they look at the significant mandate they have from the people of Australia, and they will, of course, adjust their public service in order to be able to meet their particular priorities.
We know that the promise to instigate an education revolution, 12 years overdue, will require resourcing. Those promises to reinvigorate federalism and to deal with the issues, particularly in relation to health, disability services and housing, will require a refocus of priorities. I have absolutely no doubt that those areas of most significance to the people of Australia, as expressed through the ballot box just 10 days ago, will indeed receive additional and significant funding.
The other point in relation to which I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question is the opportunity to remind the opposition in this place and the people of Canberra of what John Howard did when he came to government in 1996. How many jobs were lost in the ACT? The only real or genuine recession suffered since the Second World War in the ACT was precipitated by the Liberal Party in 1996, with the wholesale slashing of the commonwealth public service and the belittling ever since that day of the ACT by the Liberal Party. Certainly, it is an issue that we will watch. I have been in touch with Lindsay Tanner. I have indicated to Lindsay Tanner the importance of maintaining a strong and healthy commonwealth public service and Canberra, and the need to devote attention to the welfare and wellbeing of this particular town. I will continue to have those conversations. But I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question.
MR SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Mr Stefaniak.
MR STEFANIAK: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Chief Minister, what modelling has your government done on the potential impact of $10 billion in cuts to the commonwealth public sector on the ACT economy?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .