Page 1517 - Week 06 - Thursday, 2 July 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We acknowledge that during a global pandemic that has caused a public health emergency and a global economic crisis, the ACT government need to inject more cash into our economy and that is exactly what we are doing; but we need to do this at the same time as protecting the health of Canberrans and not cutting essential service delivery.
The question that the Leader of the Opposition has consistently failed to answer, when put to him by almost every journalist in this city and, indeed, by increasingly thousands and thousands of Canberrans, as they hear about this policy, is: if you are intending to freeze rates for a four-year period, what are you going to cut? How are you going to pay for it? People look to this Liberal Party, this Canberra Liberal party, and they look to its history. They look to what it has done in the past, what it stands for, and they know that it stands for cuts to government service delivery, cuts to public sector employment; and they know that this promise that comes from the Leader of the Opposition would have to be paid for somehow, and it will be paid for in the loss of jobs and services in our community.
That is what the Leader of the Opposition is taking to the next election. He is most welcome to take that platform; but what he must answer before 17 October is how he will pay for this policy proposal. How many jobs will go? What services will be cut? That is in the Liberal Party’s DNA. That is what they believe in. I pay credit to the Leader of the Opposition. He has always been from the IPA school of right-wing economics. I know his economic advisory team well. One of them tutored me in economics at ANU nearly 30 years ago. I am very well aware of who is advising the Leader of the Opposition and the views that the Leader of the Opposition has had throughout his political career. He is standing true to those values. Those values are smaller government, cuts to public sector employment and cuts to government services.
He is having his moment in the sun, his opportunity to lead his party now, and what he is seeking to deliver for this community during a recession is more cuts, more job losses and fewer government services. That is how he would pay for his plan to see his ideological agenda put in place. That is what he stands for. That is what he is putting forward.
I will not fault him for putting forward what he believes—and that is smaller government, job cuts and fewer services—but I will contend that that is the wrong economic approach for our city at this time, indeed at any time. I welcome the policy differences between the progressive side of politics and the conservative side of politics.
People will have a choice at this election, and what they can be guaranteed from this government is that we will support jobs, we will support the ongoing delivery of government services, and we recognise the fundamental role of government, during this time in particular, to be investing in our economy, to be supporting households, to be supporting business and, most importantly, to be creating jobs, not putting ourselves in a position where we have to cut jobs in order to meet a lifelong ideological agenda. I commend my amendment to the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video