Page 3416 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 17 August 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
That is just one example of a particular industry that will be affected by the proposed cuts. Other industries will also suffer. What about the small businesses who depend on the expenditure of public servants for their livelihood? A two-year freeze on public servant hiring would amount to a cut of 12,000 positions. Data is available that lists public service employment by electorate. Assuming 12,000 job losses and an even proportion of job losses across the country, this would amount to direct and indirect job losses of, in the electorate of Canberra, 3,076 jobs, in the electorate of Fraser, 2,652 jobs and, for our surrounding neighbours, in the electorate of Eden-Monaro 536 jobs and in the electorate of Hume 227 jobs.
These cuts amount to an approximately 80 per cent increase in the unemployment rate in the ACT. Not only that—the whole region will suffer. We know that a significant number of people who work in and contribute to the ACT economy live in the surrounding region. We must also be mindful of the impact that decisions will have on them. Only hours ago, speaking at the National Press Club, Tony Abbott said that he could not rule out further cuts—that is, the job losses could be even greater. At the Liberal Party local campaign launch on Sunday and as reported in the Canberra Times on Monday, Mr Hockey said, “Mr Humphries let me know his views in no uncertain terms about that, but we’re being up-front with the Australian people, and we’re being up-front with Canberrans about what has to be done.”
I should also say that Ms Gillard has made reference to “unpopular cutbacks”, as well as some specific cutbacks for particular agencies, which also gives rise to a concern that neither the Labor Party nor the Liberal Party actually appreciates what the public service means to the ACT economy and the need for an adequately resourced public service that is capable of delivering good outcomes for all Australians.
The public service should not be a political football. Governments have a responsibility to ensure the efficiency of expenditure of public money. However, they also have an obligation to ensure good outcomes for Australians. We have an obligation to ensure good outcomes for the ACT. I think that everyone could agree that job losses of this scale will have a devastating effect on our economy and will not be in the best interests of the ACT economy and its people.
We are enjoying a strong economy and to throw that away in the heat of an election debate is irresponsible, to say the least. The Greens support an efficient, capable and well-resourced public service. We recognise the need for a quality executive to deliver outcomes for people. As a parliament, we depend on the public service to implement the laws that we pass and to provide us with the information and ideas necessary to govern the community. We also recognise the need for efficiency and understand that we must be aware of the potential for waste within the bureaucracy.
Obviously, a balance must be found and that balance must recognise the need for a quality public service to be both efficient and effective. Back in 1997, Kate Carnell said in this place when commenting on the public service cuts at that time:
There is no hiding the fact that this budget means another very tough year for the ACT.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video