Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak today about the dire plans the coalition has in store for the Australian Public Service and to contrast them with Labor's optimistic plan for a strong Public Service. For the 11th time, the member for North Sydney on 16 May 2012 has gotten wrong the growth in the size of the Australian Public Service. For the 11th time, the member for North Sydney, Mr Hockey, has claimed that the government has grown the Australian Public Service by 20,000 when he knows in fact the true growth is 12,000.

The member for North Sydney's inability to grapple with the facts about the size of the Public Service speaks volumes about the coalition's attitude to the Public Service. Last August the member for North Sydney was offered a briefing at the Australian Public Service Commission to get his numbers right, to cease using a number that includes Defence Force reservists as public servants. But he has so far refused to take that up.

The opposition, if they are to be believed, have a plan to cut 12,000 public servants. In fact, repeatedly, when the opposition are asked how they will fill their $70 billion black hole, they point towards slashing the Public Service as their plan for meeting their budget black hole.

The member for North Sydney is a little like Rick Perry, the inept Texas governor who ran for the Republican nomination for President, saying that he would get rid of three US federal departments. The only difference is that the member for North Sydney, unlike Rick Perry, can actually remember the three departments he intends to scrap: they are the department of health, which he says is out of control, despite the fact that it employs about as many people as when the Leader of the Opposition was health minister; the department of climate change, despite the fact that, under a coalition direct action plan, more administration would be required than under the government's much more straightforward carbon pricing plan; and the Defence Materiel Organisation.

So the coalition has said that they will scrap 12,000 Public Service jobs, but it is entirely possible that they will scrap many more than that. Asked on, I think it was, 7.30, whether or not the coalition would get rid of 20,000 Public Service jobs, the member for North Sydney refused to rule it out. At the same time, the coalition has plans for a 15,000-strong standing green army without any detail whatsoever as to how that proposal would operate. But, of course, they are only the numbers that are formally placed on the table.

The opposition has formally placed on the table plans to cut 12,000—or maybe 20,000—Public Service jobs, but it is entirely possible that this is the tip of the iceberg. I am fortunate to be in the position of having a copy of the Liberal-National Party's public administration policy, which the coalition took to the 1996 election. That policy said:

Our plans to reduce department running costs by 2 per cent will involve not replacing a proportion of those who leave , up to 2500 positions over the first term of Coalition Government, a process of natural attrition with no forced redundancies.

What did the coalition actually do when they came to office? In 1996-97, they retrenched 10,070 public servants; in 1997-98, they retrenched 10,238 ongoing employees; and, in 1998-909, they retrenched 9,061 ongoing public servants. In total, upon winning office in 1996, the coalition retrenched 30,000 public servants—that is in clear contrast to their election policy's statement that said they would be not replacing 2,500 positions. Indeed, the number of public servants who eventually lost their jobs after the coalition won office in 1996 was more than 10 times the number whom they said would be made redundant.

It is interesting to note, if we turn to the bottom of the 1996 election policy, that it is printed and authorised by a Mr A Robb, who is now the shadow finance minister. He is the shadow finance minister under Mr Abbott—the man who says that you do not trust anything he says unless he writes it down—and he is the person who said, prior to the 1996 election, that there would be only 2,500 Public Service job cuts. In fact, upon winning office, the coalition got rid of 30,000 public sector jobs. When asked why they would want to get rid of Public Service jobs, the member for Dickson noted that the federal department of health does not see one patient; does not run one hospital; does not employ one doctor, nurse or pharmacist. It might surprise the member for Dickson to know that that is exactly how things have always operated in the Department of Health and Ageing, which administers a vast health promotion program, oversees health research and maintains a network of public hospitals throughout Australia. The coalition may be surprised to learn that the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations does not have schoolchildren walking its corridors. They might be shocked to learn that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry does not regularly partake in office fishing trips. We can only hope that the coalition does not call on the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism to demand room service and more towels.

Those opposite simply do not understand the important work of public servants. They do not understand the critical work that is being done to support Australian prosperity by the hardworking public servants in Australia, including the many public servants in my own electorate of Fraser. On this side of the House, we are proud of public servants. It was public servants who did so much to get us through the global financial crisis with a temporary, timely, targeted fiscal stimulus program that was recognised by international economic authorities, such as the IMF, as being a world-beating fiscal stimulus program because it was put into place quickly and efficiently. When those opposite see public servants, they only think of how to beat them up and how to win votes.

It is true that in the current budget we have made savings across the board. In the process of making savings across the board, there has been an impact on the Public Service. For example, there are redeployments from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations across to the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education. There have been changes in the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency as result of some of the pre-carbon pricing programs coming to an end. We have been honest about those changes, which will take total Australian Public Service numbers back to about where they were in 2009. Having had modest growth year on year in Public Service numbers under the Rudd and Gillard governments, this budget now sees Public Service numbers returning to about where they were in 2009.

This has been difficult for some public servants, including those in my electorate of Fraser. I have been keen to work with departments to make sure that redeployment policies are followed and to make sure that unfilled vacancies are filled. Where we are able to, we will redeploy across federal agencies and the ACT government, which is often struggling to find talented public servants. The cuts are difficult in the ACT, but they do come at a time when, according to the latest vacancy survey, there are around 4,900 job vacancies in the ACT. I do hope that the Canberra Business Council, which has spoken of the skills shortage in the ACT, is able to employ anyone who has taken on, for example, a voluntary redundancy and is able to grow and prosper in the current environment. In conclusion, Labor appreciates the value of a strong Public Service. Those opposite believe only in cutting it. (Time expired)

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this motion moved by the member for Fraser. I note the first two points that the member's motion refers to, recognising the important role of the Australian Public Service in upholding and promoting our democracy and its key role in ensuring stable government and, secondly, commending the Australian Public Service on continuing to be one of the most effective and efficient public services in the world. These are both commendable motions, and I think that members of this House would largely agree with them.

However, the third point reflects so much about this member in particular and the way he goes about his argument. The third point of this motion condemns the plans by the opposition to make 12,000 public service jobs redundant. There is no hiding from the fact that the opposition, and the shadow Treasurer and shadow finance minister in particular, have made it very clear that we will return public service levels to reflect what was clear when we left government in 2007.

But where the member is being quite deceitful—and he does this regularly—is where he quotes some facts but leaves important facts out. The government that he is a part of, that he would wish to be a more senior part of—he desires it desperately, and he tries to prove every day why he should be a more senior part of it—is at the moment in the midst of cutting a similar amount of jobs from the Canberra public service. We did not hear a word of that during his contribution! For the benefit of the member, I will table at the end of this contribution an article by Chris Johnson from the Canberra Times. He wrote on 9 May:

Swan slashes 4200 PS jobs: ACT takes biggest hit since Howard years.

Now, if the broader macro argument that this government has tried to make on one hand about this budget that they are somehow reducing the size of the Commonwealth government to a record extent, some four per cent turnaround in the reduction of government expenditures, that would make some sense, if that were true—in an attempt to create a paper surplus to cover over their failed economic management. But, of course, you did not hear a word of that during the member for Fraser's contribution. You heard a turgid attack on the opposition and our plans to get the budget back into some sort of manageable order. You heard the member for Fraser completely avoid the fact that his own government has plans to reduce the number of public servants. And now he sits there and does not acknowledge the fact that his own government and his own local paper made this point perfectly clear.

For the benefit of the Federation Chamber I will table this article at the end of my contribution, because it says:

In the biggest attack on the federal bureaucracy since the late 1990s, when John Howard came to power and put the ACT into recession, more than 4200 fulltime jobs will go in the coming financial year alone, with few government agencies being spared …

He goes on to say:

In 2013-14 another $164 million will be saved from the government's workforce wages bill, indicating total job losses will possibly exceed 12,000 …

His own motion says, 'condemns the plan of the opposition to cut 12,000 from the public service'!

If the member for Fraser were being completely truthful and honest with this place, he would stand and amend his own motion to say, 'The member for Fraser condemns plans by the opposition and the Labor government of cutting 12,000 jobs from the Australian Public Service'. But, of course, he will not, because this is a tactic he uses very regularly. He regularly uses economic statistics which, just occasionally, exclude important facts.

Dr Leigh interjecting—

And here is an important fact, if you would like it: you should rise and amend your motion to be completely honest with this chamber, because that would be the right thing to do. But of course he will not, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, because like with so many in this government the full story is never told.

The reason that we are being very clear with the Australian public about the difficulty that is facing the Australian budget is because of the decisions that this government has made which have put the Australian economy and the Australian budget into a position of risk. When they were elected to government in 2007 they came across a budget which was in pristine condition. There was no debt, the economy was growing strongly—

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Structural deficit.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the member for Blair wants to, we can talk about a structural deficit. I know that the member for Fraser is sitting there thinking, 'We shouldn't have raised that point.'

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through the chair.

Honourable members interjecting—

Order! The member will be heard in silence.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the shadow Treasurer's commitments is that when we are elected we will show, in the budget papers, the structural deficit—we will show the structural position of the budget. The member for Blair is right: there are some structural challenges coming at this country like a bullet train. And the person who identified those was the former Treasurer, Peter Costello—the best Treasurer this country has ever had. He identified these issues—

Dr Leigh interjecting—

We know your private view about the current Treasurer, Member for Fraser, that is for sure. What we have before us is a misleading motion in that it excludes an important fact, which is that the Labor government is doing exactly the same thing that he wishes to condemn the opposition for planning to do. But there are some very good reasons why we are planning to do exactly this. A good and effective public service does not have to be a fat public service; it does not have to have too many staff to do a good and effective job. We showed that when we were in government the last time. The Public Service is an important part of ensuring that the country is managed properly, but it does not need to be excessive. We argue—I think rightly—that it has become excessively staffed, that there are too many fat cats, earning too much, in the Public Service. We will start the process of winding this back.

It is not just the amount of public servants; it is their benefits such as credit cards when they get to those executive levels. Since this government came to office, we have seen a 100 per cent increase in the amount of expenditure on government credit cards. That is a 100 per cent increase in four years, not because they are spending more but because there are more credit cards out there. There are more credit cards because there are more SES band staff. We have a genuine commitment to reduce the size of government.

Honourable members interjecting—

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The chair is having difficulty hearing the member's speech.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I appreciate your support and protection. This is an important point: the government has dragged us into a terrible position in a budgetary sense, therefore we will have to make some genuine savings to achieve what the Australian public expects. Last week the shadow Treasurer made this point very clearly in his response to the budget at the National Press Club, where he said that the coalition has a commitment, as a major priority, to achieve genuine surplus budgets in the first three years of our term.

I want to raise a serious point in relation to the first two points of this motion before us. As I said at the beginning, the member for Fraser will appreciate this. They are worthy points to make. However, not only do we have genuine concern that the numbers in the Public Service right now too high, and we will move to reduce them; we are also concerned about the standard of information that has been coming out of key departments such as the Treasury. We think, and I know several well-known economists around the country think or believe, that the standard of advice and forecasts coming out of the Treasury are not up to scratch. As a priority, we in government will be seeking to address that. We need a strong Treasury. We need a strong Prime Minister's department. We need a strong Public Service. It is fair to say that we have been disappointed, particularly with this budget, when we have seen what can only be described as extremely optimistic forecasts, particularly when it comes to the revenue side.

With this government's excesses, the waste, the mismanagement, the increasing size of government and the debt it has built up—and the member for Blair made a good point on this earlier—the structural deficit that has now been so substantially built into the budget is so great that it will be a challenge for us coming into government to handle properly. As our population gets older, we will have fewer taxpayers and a larger demand on our services. That is what Peter Costello told us in the 2000s with his Intergenerational Reports. That is the reason that the debt they have built up, with $8 billion a year we now have to pay in interest, will make it harder and harder. That is why the coalition will commit to genuine reform in the Public Service, to reduce the numbers to the appropriate levels to do the job we ask. But we will not stand for this hypocrisy from the member for Fraser in moving a motion when his own government seeks to do exactly what it condemns us for. (Time expired)

I seek leave to table the article from the Canberra Times.

Leave granted.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always interesting hearing the member for Mayo. He is one of the architects and apostles of Work Choices—so, there you go. They will use the public sector when they want to, to punish workers and to reduce wages, conditions that are so important to socially disadvantaged and working class areas around the country. But, when it is convenient, they will beat up on the public sector whenever they want to.

I commend the member for Fraser in relation to this motion because we do have an independent, honourable public sector in this country. It does promote democracy. I do not know what those opposite want, whether they want public servants like Sir Humphrey Appleby, or whether they want supine public servants that do not give them fearless and frank advice. We saw that with the children overboard provision many years ago when they mistreated the public sector in a way that made out the public sector to be something that it was not supposed to be. Their plans, once again, to sack public servants and make them redundant, as the member for Fraser has put it, are so typical of what a coalition government does.

We are seeing that now in my home state of Queensland. On the weekend I visited the Ipswich show; about 25,000 people were there. It was opened by the new Premier, Campbell Newman. One of the things that struck me was that six people came up to me at the show who were concerned about jobs in their area of the Public Service, ranging from communities to workplace health and safety and the like. Of course, coalition oppositions always take the view that they will sack public servants, but they are quite remiss in explaining to the public their full and secret plans. They will say things like, '12,000 public sector jobs will go in Canberra,' and they will make that point to the Australian public as if, somehow, beating up on Canberra public servants is what to do. The coalition always campaigns on fear and always campaigns in this way. They pick up a group of people, whether it is public servants or trade unions or other people, and then demonise that particular group and say that that particular group is not worthy to get support or should be punished in some way, shape or form. It does not matter whether they are led by Menzies, or Fraser, or Howard, or indeed by the current opposition leader.

They use figures and they claim that somehow, if we sack these public servants and get rid of them, this will solve their $70 billion black hole, or is it the $10.6 billion black hole that they took to the last election and kept from the public? It was only revealed during the negotiations in relation to the formation of government. They have identified a number of areas to be put on the chopping block—the Department of Health and Ageing, the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and the like. Obviously they think that this is the way they should go. I cannot see that sacking people like this will do much in terms of carrying out their own policies, which they hope to implement after this election.

They have constantly misquoted figures. The Special Minister of State has pulled up the shadow Treasurer on many occasions about growth in the public sector. For example, Minister Gray has pointed out that the official figures show that between 30 June 2007 and 30 June 2011 the public sector grew by 11,072 jobs. But, of course, we see the shadow Treasurer, in a bid to justify his position to sack public servants, constantly claiming that it has grown by 20,000 jobs during that time. Public servants are mums and dads, they are people with children, they are people who actually spend money in local communities and contribute to those local communities. How putting those people out of work will benefit those local communities, their children and families and how that will benefit our country and communities is beyond me. It is typical of the rhetoric we see from coalition members. We see it in Queensland now. We will see it if these people actually get into power in the next 18 months, because that is exactly what they are like—constantly attacking those who serve the public, whether it is in Queensland or in the ACT or federally. (Time expired)

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have just heard from the previous speaker that public servants are people too. If you cut them, do they not bleed? Thank you for that blinding insight, but the critical point is that the people who pay for the public servants are people too. The Public Service is paid for by the private sector and, while it may not have permeated the consciousness here in Canberra, the private sector around Australia is doing it tough. There are organisations throughout the private sector of every scale which are going through the painful but necessary process of finding efficiencies. I have worked in business, as have many of the people on this side of the chamber, and that in itself distinguishes this side of the chamber from the other side of the chamber. All of us who have worked in business can tell you that you need to cut your cloth to suit the circumstances. When times are tough, you need to look at your expenses and ask, 'Can we justify spending as much as we presently do?' One of the indicators of the need to ask, 'Can we justify spending as much as we presently do on the number of people we have employed at this organisation?'—whichever organisation it is—is the rate at which your staff numbers have grown.

What we have seen in the Public Service under the Rudd-Gillard government is a steady increase in the number of people working in the Public Service, a steady increase in the number of people who are employed by taxpayers. Let us remind ourselves that their salary bills are paid for by taxpayers, and all taxpayers have a right and an interest in demanding that we get value for money from the money we spend on the Public Service, as all taxpayers have a right to demand that we get value for money in every dollar which is spent by the Commonwealth on behalf of taxpayers. Despite the complacent assumption of the member for Fraser, playing to his home gallery and his collection of public servant constituents, the reality is that it is not good enough to simply or complacently say, 'Oh, the Australian Public Service is "the most efficient and effective public service in the world".' Quite frankly, that is like saying they are some of the tallest short people around.

The reality is that government employees around the world are known not to be as efficient as the private sector. What the public sector can learn from the private sector is the need for a constant focus on efficiency, a constant focus on asking ourselves: 'Do we need all of the people who are employed? Are they doing the things we expect them to do? Are they doing things efficiently?' And reality and experience tell us that when an organisation grows, as the Public Service has grown steadily over the last five years, there are going to be opportunities for efficiencies.

Based upon the latest budget papers, since the last full year of the Howard government, in 2006-07, there has been an increase of approximately 20,000 government employees. This trend continues across just about every aspect of the Public Service. I have asked a question on notice in parliament of every cabinet minister as to how many new departments, agencies, commissions, government owned corporations or such bodies have been created within their portfolios. From those who have come clean so far, who have been prepared to fess up, there are 34 different new bodies established just since 2007. It is as if we have two Australias. There is one Australia where business is facing tough conditions and is taking tough but necessary decisions to reduce headcount. Then we have the comfortable, complacent, cosy, cosseted Public Service, which, under Labor, would march on regardless if we were to accept the terms of the motion moved by the member for Fraser. Apparently we have the best Public Service in the best of all possible worlds and there is something about the present number which is absolutely ideal and there is absolutely no scope for efficiency. That is a ludicrous claim. The Public Service is of course full of good, hardworking people but that does not mean there is no scope to look for efficiencies.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to be able to speak on this motion that has been brought to the House by the member for Fraser, who, together with the member for Canberra, does a fine job representing the many thousands of public servants. I learnt this firsthand, because I spent many years of my life working with, alongside of, and then defending the interests of public sector employees in this country. Because of that background, I know full well that public servants and public sector employees provide essential services to all Australians.

These are services that we all rely on, whether it is securing our borders through agencies such as the Customs service, the Quarantine and Inspection Service or even our troops on the front line and the people who support those troops. The public sector includes very important but little-known work, like tracking and reporting on unexplained wealth that is associated with criminal networks and bringing that information to the criminal investigative and prosecutorial authorities. The public sector includes the people involved in the engine room of private health care in this country—the staff of Medicare and the staff who are responsible for administering the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme which puts much-needed pharmaceuticals into the hands of literally thousands of Australians who rely on them for their lives.

The public sector includes emergency income support. I see my colleague across the House who represents an electorate that was much affected by the devastating floods in Queensland. The member for Moreton is also here, and his electorate was also affected by this. They would know firsthand the excellent work done by agencies like Centrelink who were in the front line in delivering government sponsored assistance, income support assistance, to those households affected. Millions of Australians—in fact, I understand it is one in four Australians—receive some form of assistance through Centrelink.

The public sector includes our national institutions, which are critical, the cornerstones of our proud democracy. There are the staff who work in this place and the staff who support our courts, our libraries and our museums. Most of us are involved in the day-to-day, week-to-week management of our lives and the businesses that we run, whereas public servants in this country are looking down the track to the sorts of policy settings that are needed to secure the future of this great country.

These are the functions, these are the jobs and these are the people who are often overlooked when we talk about the Australian Public Service, or public servants or bureaucrats or all the other pejoratives which are often tended upon them in the abstract. You will find that there is actually enormous community support for these functions. Unfortunately, they are not always supported in this place, and the contribution by the member for Bradfield is an example of that. Nor are they always supported on this side. These people are often the subject of political attacks from all sides of politics.

Whether it is the disparaging comments that we often hear in this House about 'bureaucrats' or 'fat cats' or 'incompetence' or 'mismanagement', I do not think, for the vast majority of Australian government employees, those sorts of criticisms are well earned. Of course mistakes happen, and when they do happen they should be interrogated and honed out and the people responsible should be appropriately dealt with.

I would like to point to another area where they are not well supported: the efficiency dividend. The efficiency dividend has been in place for over 20 years. The member for Bradfield makes the point that the Public Service should not be treated differently to any other agency and should continually face and find efficiencies. I would argue that, through the efficiency dividend, the Public Service is treated like no other agency or business in that they are continually required to pay between 1.25 per cent and three per cent of their annual running costs back to the government in the form of savings. There is the assumption that there is some sort of magic pudding that continually finds these savings. Worse is to come. If those on the opposite benches have their way, there will be over 12,000 job cuts and more to come. They have form on this. Before the 1996 election they promised 6,000 job cuts by natural attrition. Of course, as a result of what they put in place, we saw over 30,000 jobs lost and Canberra brought into a recession. These are the people on the other side that the member for Fraser— (Time expired)

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Previous speakers have indicated that have the most efficient public service sector in the world. Well, it is our intention to make it better. We have no doubt that there are motivated, good public servants who go home physically exhausted on a daily basis. They go home exhausted because of the amount of compliance. They go home exhausted because of the frustration that is bestowed upon them through the layers and layers and layers of management and compliance regulations that just seem to dog the public service sector. Wherever it is possible, the business sector tries to reduce these types of compliance measures.

The question is not whether or not you believe that there is any room for better returns on investment of taxpayers' money spent on administration of the public sector. The coalition believe that we can get a better return on investment in administering this nation. We in the coalition fundamentally believe in smaller taxes. That is no secret. This government has introduced 27 new taxes. We fundamentally believe in fewer taxes. We believe, fundamentally, in smaller government. This is not a secret. We are on the record as saying that we will tidy up, trim up, the public service sector.

How can we ask small business, the manufacturing sectors, the farming sectors, the tourism sectors and the construction sectors to tighten their belts as these sectors of the economy soften while the government has constantly mismanaged and, as some commentators have stated, there has been a 'blatant waste of taxpayers' hard-earned money by this government and administration'?

I want to refer to the budget papers with reference to the increase in the public sector. We want to find better efficiencies in the public sector staffing levels so that we can increase frontline services. At table 22 of the estimates of average staffing levels, we see that in 2006-07 we had 238,623. In the following year that increased to 248,217. In 2009 it increased to 250,566. In 2009-10 it increased to 258,321 and through to 2010-11 it increased to 261,891. From the budget's own records, there has been an increase of over 23,000 Public Service staff.

We will be reducing the public service sector because of Labor's ongoing waste and mismanagement. You do not have to look too far to see this. There is the immigration budget blowout of $4.7 billion. When we were in government it was $85 million. There has been an enormous blowout. The live cattle export fiasco forced Labor to provide $100 million in assistance packages—notwithstanding future liabilities from class actions which may still be outstanding by our cousins in the north. The administration of the carbon tax advertising was $31.5 million. Can you imagine the number of public servants it takes to run that advertising campaign—and we did not need to have it. Remember back to the comments—comments that will dog this government through to the next election—that 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Now we are having to increase the bureaucracy to run the advertising campaign. Then we have climate change bureaucrats travelling the globe, the ceiling insulation program, Fuelwatch, GroceryWatch—and the list goes on.

We will rescind the carbon tax. We will rescind the Clean Energy Fund—$10 billion of taxpayers' money going into risky investments that the private sector just refuse to invest in. We will rescind the Clean Energy Regulator, the climate change commission and the Climate Change Authority. Why have these authorities and administrations been created when all they had to do was just use the original department? It is Labor who devalues the currency of their own Public Service by not entrusting the existing people in place to take a position from. We want to work with the honourable men and women that work hard in the Public Service, that work hard to administer and govern this country better than it has been in the past.

A recent state of the state report has indicated that the ACT has the fastest annual economic growth rate in the nation—5.9 per cent—ahead of South Australia and outstripping the mighty growth of Western Australia, the resource-rich state, on 4.6. How can that be?

Debate adjourned.