Page 1444 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 28 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
They are very important subparagraphs, particularly 2(c) which calls on the federal government to at least match on a dollar for dollar basis the funding for programs next year. This is a national event. It is agreed by the federal government as a national event in their memorandum with the ACT government. Indeed in the Prime Minister’s speech on Canberra Day she said it is a national event and that we are celebrating “the nation’s capital”. So I think it is only appropriate; you would almost have to say that the federal government should outspend the ACT government on this as this is about the nation’s capital.
Our proposed subparagraph 2(d) calls for adequate funding for the NCA—no-one in this place believes that the NCA are getting adequate funding—particularly for their ability to contribute effectively to the centenary celebrations. And in 2(e) we call on all members of the federal government to provide support for actions the federal government takes to achieve 2(c) and 2(d).
Our amendment would also remove the word “all” in paragraph 3; it was very sly of the government to put in the motion that this Assembly supports “all” budget measures that make this happen. Then we are seeking to add a new paragraph 4 which will ask the Speaker to write to a slightly broadened group of political parties—in fact, all of them—in the federal parliament, and all of the independents in the parliament, advising them of the terms of this motion.
What our amendments would do is take the original motion as brought forward by Ms Porter to a different level. It is about holding the federal government accountable. It is about calling on the federal government to ensure that they are not just a player in the centenary celebrations in some words, in a glib speech by the Prime Minister, but that they put in a very strong commitment in terms of making the programs happen and that they happen effectively.
The only other thing I want to say on the motion is a few words in response to what Mr Rattenbury said about bringing on a curfew for the airport. I think we need to look at what the Canberra International Airport represents to the ACT and the potential that it brings us. If you look at the last decade or so, if the airport had not been there, if the airport had not done the building program it has undertaken, if it had not taken the risk and made the investment, I suspect federal government departments would have left the ACT, simply because the current government and the ACT planning system were not releasing land, in Civic in particular, fast enough to ensure that there was adequate space for the growth of the Australian public service, particularly in the Howard years when it did grow in response to initiatives like the GST, and the war against terror; certainly Customs grew at that time.
Vital to the future of all cities are their airports. They are no longer being called airports. There is a new term, aerotropolises; they are cities in their own right. To be viable, airports need more than just the runways and the landing fees, and I think we need to take account of that. If you look strategically at the east coast, the Canberra Airport is now virtually the only airport on the east coast that does not have a curfew.
Mr Barr: Melbourne?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video