Page 2982 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 August 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
decisions, I remind members that when Howard got in, unemployment in the ACT was eight per cent. When Howard left, it was 2.5 per cent. As Mr Barr said the other day, in answer to a question without notice:
The one observation I will make is that, regardless of who wins elections, in the medium and long term it would appear that governments of both political persuasions do in fact increase the size of the public service in the ACT over time …
So we have seen a lot of fear-mongering from those opposite.
I will address the issue of whether we should be debating this in the Assembly or not. If I open up my computer, I have some good quotes here that I can point to. The reality is that we have talked about jobs in the ACT repeatedly, because they are important. No-one is disputing that federal jobs are important to the ACT economy. I note that Dr Bourke moved a motion and made a speech about the effect of Mr Abbott’s plan for the Australian public service on Canberrans. He raised that in May, so it is clearly a matter for debate.
Mr Rattenbury called on the Speaker to write to Mr Abbott and request him to respond in writing to the Assembly on his intentions for the Australian public service. He talked about Canberra-based entities. This is an ACT issue. Jobs in the ACT are an ACT issue. But with respect to the point I made, I quote from the Canberra Times:
Mr Rattenbury unsuccessfully proposed a resolution requiring the ACT Government to write to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott expressing grave concerns at the treatment of asylum seekers, including the transfer of refugees to PNG and Nauru.
I think that even a simpleton would understand that there is a significant difference between talking about public sector jobs in the ACT and the relevance that that has to our Assembly, and the fact that that is within the purview of the ACT Legislative Assembly, and Mr Rattenbury’s attempt to get this Assembly to write to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition regarding transfer of asylum seekers from Christmas Island to Nauru and PNG. I think that even a simpleton could understand that one is a direct ACT-based issue and the other one clearly is not; it is a national issue.
So I stand by my comments. As Mr Rattenbury has agreed, this is an ACT issue. Mr Barr would agree that this is an ACT issue. No-one is going to disagree. It is regularly talked about in business councils and so on. But no-one is going to stand up in here—other than Mr Rattenbury, I think—and say that the transfer of refugees from Christmas Island to PNG is an ACT-based issue. It is not. That is the point that I go to.
This again highlights some of the issues raised by Mr Rattenbury in his speech. He seemed to be playing the double role of a minister and a Green, but he then reflected on what was parliamentary, what was not parliamentary and so on; he still wants to be the Speaker. So we not only have the dual personalities of Mr Rattenbury; we seem to have three of them. He not only wants to be a minister and a Green crossbencher, but clearly he is feeling some frustration about not being the Speaker anymore.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video