Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak about an issue which is vexing many people who live in the national capital at the present time—that is, the toll which the Rudd Labor government has taken on the fabric and the direction of this beautiful city in the course of the less than two years that it has been in office as well as what could be fairly described as a measure of disdain shown by the Labor Party towards the Canberra community.

I have mentioned already several times in this chamber that Canberra is very obviously a carefully planned city. It is a city in which the design and the layout of its buildings and the approach to its future and its planning have been very much a matter of careful and considered human endeavour and spirit. The look and feel of the city is a constant subject of public discussion and debate—to no-one more so than the people who live here. Our newest visitors, the federal Labor government, are attempting to undo, in my view, the craftsmanship of many who have in the past contributed to the quality of life in this city and the way in which the city shapes and offers a reflection on the direction of Australia as a whole. I am concerned about the way in which costcutting and the avoidance of expenditure in this city is taking a toll on the quality of life and fabric of the city. If this government is nation building, perhaps its building licence needs to be rescinded.

Last month the Department of Defence announced that the annual ‘Beating the Retreat’ ceremony at Duntroon has been called off. This is nothing short of an insult to the local community and the stymieing of a very long and proud tradition in the Canberra community. This is an example of not just rampant costcutting but also disdain, even contempt, for the people who most benefit from that institution—that is, the people of Canberra. This is, unfortunately, only one example of what we have seen under this government. Bodies such as the National Library, the National Museum, Questacon, the National Gallery of Australia, the Australian War Memorial and others have had to cope with very severe cuts to the size of their programs. All of those institutions have had to reduce the scope or the scale of what they do. Each of those institutions has been forced to reduce the level of their engagement with the Australian public—not just in Canberra but in outreach programs as well—in order to cope in the first year of this government’s tenure with the ill-conceived and, I am pleased to say, now partly abandoned efficiency dividend.

We learnt in the last sittings, for example, that Questacon, which quite evidently is a facility designed to provide children especially with an introduction to science, has had to cancel its birthday program celebrations and its program where children could stay overnight. In the school holiday period the programs at this institution were very popular, but now they are going out the door and another opportunity for children to interact with this important institution is disappearing. When a nation is led by a party which trumpets its belief in an ‘education revolution’ it is very disappointing to see opportunities for kids to learn more about science reduced. That is hardly what we were told we could expect from a Labor Party which so often proclaims its affection for and special commitment to the national capital.

We have seen severe cuts to the National Capital Authority, another indication of how badly this city has fared under Labor. It said before the election that it would make efficiencies by cancelling the overlap in the planning of areas of the city between the National Capital Authority and the ACT Planning and Land Authority. But in fact what it has done has been to cut much more than that, with the result that there have been decreases in services and attractions. Things like access to Blundell’s Cottage, tours of Anzac Parade’s major monuments and memorials and the operating hours of the Carillon have all been reduced significantly; and all of us are the poorer for it.

What is more concerning, perhaps, is the cuts to the capacity of the NCA to maintain the high standard of planning and level of provision for services and building maintenance in the national capital. In February last year, $46.3 million was taken from the budget for the upgrade of Constitution Avenue. That is a very large cut to make in any one city or community. In cutting the Griffin Legacy funding, the federal government halted much needed infrastructure work for Canberra, thereby negating the chance for jobs to be created, and it also reduced the capacity of the territory to grow and develop the Griffin Legacy, which so many subscribe to, including people in this place. Schools in the ACT have fared very badly, in spite of the rhetoric about an education revolution. Of course, we have the much vaunted computers in schools program, which has been affected here as much as anywhere else in Australia. In July, the federal government announced that 537 science laboratories and language learning centres were to be built or refurbished under the so-called education revolution. The ACT community expectantly put in bids for that funding. Despite the fact that more than $800 million was spent around the country in every state and territory, not one cent came to the Australian Capital Territory—not one. We are expected to believe, if we are to listen to what the minister said in estimates, that the 1,357 applications received from every state and territory in Australia were all superior to even the best submission made by an ACT school.

This is not the only area in which the ACT has been overlooked. Recently, $132 million of funding for projects under the Rudd government’s Jobs Fund was announced. Again, the only state or territory not to receive one cent of funding in that program was the ACT. In the latest round of allocations from the federal government there was a reduction in the amount provided for beds in the aged-care approvals round. As many beds have now been lost in the ACT this year as were lost for the whole of New South Wales and more than South Australia and Tasmania combined. The Rudd government touts itself as being a family-friendly government, yet so much of what has been cut from the ACT affects directly the quality of life of people in Canberra. Canberra is in need of a little more attention than it is getting from this government—a little more attention to the kind of real, local solutions which are necessary to keep a community like Canberra on its feet.

I contrast the performance of almost two years under the Rudd government to how well the ACT fared previously, under the coalition government. I will mention just a few of the many institutions and adornments that were added to this city. The National Museum of Australia of course was the most significant, but the Old Parliament House Gardens upgrade, the building of Commonwealth Place and Reconciliation Place, the national flag display, RG Menzies Walk, the National Emergency Services Memorial, Magna Carta Place, the Australian of the Year Walk, the Women’s Suffrage Commemorative Fountain and, most recently, the building of the National Portrait Gallery all attest to the commitment to the city of the former coalition government. What a pity that those who talk the talk cannot match the performance of that former government.

The legacy of the Liberal Party in this city is very proud. I am very concerned about the way in which Canberra is going under this government. There appears to be a quite concerted effort to reduce the investment that is made in this city and its institutions. When people make the flippant remarks ‘Canberra decided this’ or ‘Canberra has stopped that from happening,’ I remind them that the ACT returns just four representatives of the 225 or so members of the federal parliament. By contrast, a city like Brisbane returns something like 24 senators and members to the federal parliament. So why, when a decision is made by the federal government, is it not equally true to say that Brisbane has made the decision—or, equally, Melbourne, Sydney or Perth? It would be much truer to say that Melbourne has made the decision than Canberra. In this case, if Canberra were making the decisions, it certainly would not be sustaining the kinds of cuts and the kind of neglect that we have seen in the last 24 months. That is a matter which any government, proud of its national capital, wanting to make it a showcase where the best of Australian endeavour and achievement can be witnessed, ought to reverse.

I call on the government to understand how badly Canberra has fared under its regime and to reverse the decisions it has made to target this city unfairly.