Page 1483 - Week 05 - Wednesday, 14 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
None of us in this chamber, I am sure, want to see a reduction in jobs in Canberra. I think that is something that we can all be clear about. We can all be clear about standing up and saying, “We want to see a strong economy in the ACT. We want to see strong jobs growth.” We have all made representations to our colleagues federally to say, “Let’s make sure that that is the case.” But where was the rhetoric that we have heard today from those opposite when federal Labor were doing what we saw they were doing to the ACT economy and to the federal public service?
I think that we need to look at what this government are doing in response. Instead of behaving as they did today, like a bunch of doomsday cultists—as ex-Chief Minister Kate Carnell has said, “Don’t be prophets of doom”—do not be prophets of doom, Mr Barr. Yes, this is a tough budget. Yes, we need a response. Yes, we need to get on with business. But let us not talk our economy down. Let us not talk this community down and let us not do as Mr Barr has done and say that this will devastate our local community.
There is a cycle in politics that we all understand and I think it needs to be acknowledged that the tough decisions that have been made by the federal coalition will have an impact on Canberra. No-one is denying that. We know that it will, but it is now a matter of how we respond. I think it is important to understand why those decisions have been made, and it is because of the position that the federal budget is in. If you listened to Mr Hockey’s speech last night you got a very clear illustration that doing nothing was not an option. Just letting the budget slide to $600 billion of debt was not an option. Hard decisions needed to be made.
I always argue—and I do argue and I make representations to my federal colleagues—that I do not want to see a disproportionate effect on Canberra than on the rest of the nation. But it is clear, given that we are the home of the federal public service, that when a budget is in a position that we see it in and decisions have been made, we are going to bear some of that pain. Unfortunately, we are seeing some of that happen now as a result of the problem that the federal government is trying to sort out.
I would rather we do not play the blame game. Unfortunately, the conversation that those opposite want to have today is about the blame game. They are trying to generate the political heat around it. We know exactly what they are doing. Everybody observing this will understand what they are doing. But if there is to be a blame game played, should the blame be levelled at the person that is trying to fix the problem or should it be at the people that caused the problem in the first place?
Now, I would contend that is where the guilt, the blame, lies, but what I would rather see are positive motions like Mr Smyth’s in this Assembly saying, “This is how we can get this economy moving; this is how we can take action locally to get the convention centre built,” rather than what we have seen today—that is, a wall of negativity from those opposite. I hope you respond better to what we are facing now rather than just complaining and trying to create political opportunism in motions like this. (Time expired.)
Mr Rattenbury interjecting—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video