Page 2256 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 9 May 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
fiscal responsibility and ensuring that your budget is responsible at times requires savings and efficiencies to be sought across government. I do not think anyone in this place would deny that. It is part of everyday government and management of the finances to be looking for efficiencies.
The ACT government does not support the efficiency dividend. Despite those opposite saying that I have not condemned the job cuts, I have. In every interview that I have done and in my presentation to the chamber this morning I used some very strong language around the job cuts. I do not agree that 1,400 jobs can be lost without making a noticeable impact in terms of confidence in the city but also in terms of workload that the federal public service will be required to do.
But I have to say that 1,400 fades very much into the background when you are looking at some of the comments from the federal opposition. Again, I do not seek to be political about it; I just seek to say that the federal Liberals’ position is not to rule out 20,000 jobs as a starting point. I understand Mr Seselja has distanced himself from that. That is very different to a process of voluntary redundancies and attrition of 1,400 staff. As I understand it, turnover rates in the federal public service sit at around five per cent. My understanding is that cuts of this order sit at about 1.5 per cent.
Yes, we do not want the job cuts to happen. We think Canberra has taken very much an unfair share of the savings that are being required across the country. But it is a very different situation to looking at how you would manage 1,400 jobs as opposed to what we would be doing if Joe Hockey had his way, based on what he has said repeatedly in the media. I wrote to Mr Hockey months ago asking him to meet with me and that I would arrange a meeting with some industry leaders and community leaders so that they could tell him directly—not from a politician—what job cuts of that order would do to this city. I do not believe I have even been given the courtesy of a reply. So you have the first minister of a jurisdiction raising an issue, a legitimate issue that goes to the heart of our economic wellbeing, and you have the would-be treasurer of a federal Liberal government not even bothering to reply. That is the contempt that I think exists on the part of the federal coalition in their attitude to Canberra.
That is in sharp contrast to the attitude that has been displayed by the Prime Minister at times. I outline the commitment she has made to Canberra and the fact that she has listened when we have raised issues with her. She has responded around the centenary. She has responded around Constitution Avenue. She responded in terms of her commitment to Canberra on the 99th birthday in making some very important long-term commitments about the role of this city. Yes, unfortunately, in their quest to return the budget to surplus, it has meant they have had to look to cut their costs, and that means that 1,400 jobs will go from Canberra in the next year. Again, that is not something the ACT government supports.
Again, we contrast ourselves with those opposite—the bad news brigade. The first minute there is any bad news anywhere to be had in Canberra, there are Brendan Smyth and Zed Seselja, usually with a media release, blaming the lease variation charge. There have been about 40 media releases on that. That is what they are—the bad news brigade: “Great, some bad news hit our city. Let’s put out a media release. Let’s promote that view and let’s blame it all on our political opponents.”
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video