Page 550 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 5 March 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
verge of an employment crisis. I know from meetings with the recruitment industry, for example, that the biggest problem they face is finding people to fill vacancies, not finding vacancies for applicants.
Having said that, I do question the Rudd government’s cuts to the cultural institutions and do recognise the significant impact of these cuts on the Canberra community. But I must say that I do not see anything wrong with seeking efficiencies in government. I think there is a duty on all elected representatives in any government to manage the expenditures of government and exercise restraint.
I understand that some $5.851 million will be cut from the Federal Department of Environment, Heritage Water and the Arts in 2008-09. This translates to $196,000 from the National Gallery’s budget, $269,000 from the National Library and $188,000 from the National Museum. These amounts increase over the outyears, and there is no doubt that they will have some impact on the services that these institutions offer.
Unfortunately, Canberra will feel the greatest impact from these particular cuts to the services that are offered by the national institutions, notwithstanding Dr Foskey’s point that they are essentially there for all Australians. The national institutions are tremendous assets for the territory; we are fortunate to have them and to have had them constructed—particularly, as was pointed out, as much of this was driven by the late Sir Robert Menzies. Not only are they great places for local residents to visit but they are significant tourist destinations; they help attract people to Canberra. I know that they drive up accommodation occupancy in the ACT, particularly those things out at the National Gallery.
Their budgets, in the scheme of total federal government spending, are relatively small but these cuts, I fear, will have an impact on the services they are able to offer. While efficiencies as a rule are a good thing, they must be made for a purpose, not just to make a symbolic gesture.
I was a little startled to hear Mr Barr on the radio, when these cuts were first announced, trying to spin them as potentially good for the ACT. I think this is a bridge too far and a position that he would not have taken prior to 24 November or if the coalition was in government federally.
The ACT is heavily influenced by the federal government and changes to the Australian public service. A quote from the Chief Minister used in Mr Seselja’s motion is accurate: to an extent the ACT is susceptible to drastic shifts in policy at a federal level. The ACT must continue to develop; it must continue to mature and become less reliant over time on the federal government. However, it is a fact of life that, when over 50,000 people of a total population of just 340,000 work in the Australian public service, significant changes in direction by the federal government will have an impact on the ACT.
I support the original motion’s calls for the ACT government to detail what they will do to counter or minimise the impact of any potential cuts and do note the Chief Minister’s point about working with the commonwealth and the Business Council to absorb and ameliorate possible impacts of job losses in the ACT because the full
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .