Page 1991 - Week 07 - Wednesday, 15 May 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This was last year. Go back in time; it seems like a long time ago. She said:
… it was a clever budget and it was a budget firmly focused on the future … and I would like to congratulate the Treasurer for a budget that both supports and assists families facing cost-of-living pressures and returns our budget to surplus. The surplus will provide a buffer in uncertain global economic times—and times are indeed uncertain. The surplus will also give the Reserve Bank further room to cut interest rates and the surplus will allow us to protect low- and middle-income families and our most vulnerable communities.
I assume, therefore, that if Gai Brodtmann says that our surplus will “allow us to protect low and middle income families and our most vulnerable communities” that she accepts that the $19 billion deficit that was actually delivered will not actually support low income families and will not help the budget. You cannot have it both ways, can you?
Canberrans have been misled by Gai Brodtmann and by her federal Labor colleagues who have been telling us that the budget was in surplus when it was not, and have been saying that they would not be cutting jobs when they have been. You can go to any number of quotes. Senator Lundy, Gai Brodtmann and Andrew Leigh said:
A Gillard Government will move Australia and Canberra forward, continue to deliver a strong economy and bring the budget to surplus by 2013 …
How about this? This one was actually delivered on April Fool’s Day in 2010. Ironic! It is from Senator Lundy. Maybe she was having a bit of a joke. She said:
Under Labor, the overall size of the Commonwealth public service has remained steady and while there is movement within departments and agencies to reflect Labor’s priorities, this sensible approach by the Rudd Labor Government will continue.
Really? Is that true, members opposite? Madam Speaker, I do not think it is. It really is not.
The question then is: why should Canberrans who are listening to Gai Brodtmann or Andrew Leigh, or their patsies here in this chamber who just echo their sentiments and try to support what is only a bad budget for Canberra, believe them? When they say, “Gonski’s going to be good for Canberra,” or, “We’re going to be delivering surpluses some time out in the forward estimates,” why would the average Canberran—who is now not going to get the baby bonus, who is going to have to pay for their parking, who is under the threat of losing their job because of the job cuts, who is going to be crammed into more constrained office space, who is losing family tax benefits, whose parents are going to be getting less superannuation or paying more on their superannuation, who are told repeatedly by Labor that the budget would be in surplus—believe anybody? And they should not. They would be right not to, because the reality is that this is a classic Labor budget. It is taxing us more; it is spending more.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video