Page 1758 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 8 May 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the Leader of the Opposition locally and the Leader of the Opposition nationally. This is not some in the heat of the moment discussion; this is the absolutely calm, considered, pre-prepared, pre-scripted version now coming from the federal Liberal Party and endorsed today by the Leader of the Opposition.
We have in this economy at this time solid growth, low unemployment, strong investment, strong public finances, contained inflation and the lowest interest rates for nearly 50 years—signs of a strong economy: record levels of employment within the ACT. Who wants to put this at risk, Mr Assistant Speaker? The Liberal Party, the one party that will go to the next election with a view to, firstly, cutting 20,000 jobs out of Canberra and, secondly, relocating jobs as much as possible out of this city. We saw this with Mr Abbott on Geelong radio only this week suggesting that what is needed is for more and more jobs to be relocated out of Canberra. That contrasts with the position that the Prime Minister put on Canberra Day, on our 100th birthday, to acknowledge the importance of Canberra—
Opposition members interjecting—
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Mr Barr, just take a seat for a moment. Clerk, could you stop the clock. Mr Seselja, I have asked you a number of times to cease interjecting. Mr Hanson, I have asked you to cease interjecting a number of times as well. Please cease interjecting or I will have to take some action. Mr Barr.
MR BARR: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. That commitment to Canberra as the national capital was very clear, and it is an important commitment for this city. The national capital is here. It is not in Karratha, it is not in Townsville, it is not in Darwin, it is not in Geelong. We do not need jobs sent out to those regions that are already here in the ACT. That is a very clear commitment from the Prime Minister and one that we would hope would be bipartisan. I do not think it is unreasonable for both sides of politics, in Canberra’s 100th year, to support the concept of the national capital—the reason this city was established and the reason that it continues to play the leading role in the nation’s public affairs.
That is not an unreasonable thing, you would think. Even Mr Hanson and Mr Smyth could probably find themselves being able to agree with that. Yet their party nationally is adopting an entirely different approach. The former Leader of the Opposition is going to find himself in one of the most excruciatingly difficult positions over coming months, having convinced the Liberal Party that he is better than Gary Humphries at standing up for Canberra. We certainly look forward to seeing what he will do and what influence he can wield within his own party. A good start would be to sign up to this charter. What a good idea. You could do it as the Senate candidate, Mr Seselja, and then you could take it to your federal leader. That would be a really useful contribution. It would show your bona fides in relation to this city. That should not be too much to ask.
As we go back and look at the historical record and what occurred in 1996, we certainly see a trail of wreckage wreaked by the incoming government. There was an 8.1 per cent decrease in ongoing staffing levels, and that was from 3½ thousand jobs at that time. So a 20,000 job cut figure would be even more significant. In 1996-97,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video