Page 3800 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 24 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
they need to be properly supported. At the end of the day he did not take that time to come around and talk about it. So we will be going ahead and we will be supporting Ms Porter’s amendment. I will be seeking leave to move an amendment to that soon.
MR BARR (Molonglo—Deputy Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Minister for Education and Training and Minister for Tourism, Sport and Recreation) (4.47): I thought Mr Smyth was going to speak in defence of his colleague’s amendment. I know that the Leader of the Opposition has already cut and run and left the chamber. Perhaps he is off to the cocktails with a carbon tax theme at Parliament House. If he is, he will have the opportunity to meet with many Liberal senators and members. Perhaps he might take the opportunity to discuss what he professes to believe in relation to the impact of his federal colleagues’ policies on the ACT. To the extent that we are holding you up, Mr Seselja, from cocktails at Parliament House, I hope that you have a most enjoyable evening and that you do take the opportunity to remind your federal colleagues of the ills of their policy commitments.
I do note in Mr Seselja’s presentation that he made reference to changes in the composition of the federal public service. He alluded to changes in Centrelink. Because of reduced unemployment nationally, fewer staff are required within Centrelink. That would appear to be a sensible policy arrangement. In periods of lower unemployment, one would anticipate the workforce requirement within Centrelink to be less. But, of course, there are other areas of public policy priority.
Mr Smyth and Mr Seselja cannot have it both ways. Joe Hockey is on the front page of the Canberra Times today saying that government is bigger than it was in 2007. According to Joe Hockey, there are more public servants employed in the ACT now than there were in 2007, in spite of the allegations made in Mr Seselja’s amendment to the motion and in various media comments that he has made on these issues over time.
If all of the impacts of efficiency dividends and changes to the number of staff employed in Centrelink are taken into account and if Mr Hockey is correct—that there are still more people employed in the public service—that would indicate that the federal government is able to move employment around the commonwealth public service for particular policy priorities from time to time, reflecting changes in economic circumstances.
I do note Ms Hunter’s most sensible amendment to Ms Porter’s motion around the statement that the 12,000 public servants that will be made redundant under a future federal Liberal government would include the entire dismantling of the department of climate change. Anyone who dares to disagree with the policy position of the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow treasurer will see the entire department abolished.
Here is a pretty clear indication of the direction that is proposed by an incoming federal Liberal government. The interesting thing and a challenge for the Canberra Liberals is that there is still time before the next election, shadow treasurer, for you to seek to influence your party’s policy position. But I think most Canberrans who have lived in this city for any period of time would recognise that they need to look at the form of the respective political parties.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video