Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 4 Hansard (25 June) . . Page.. 1097 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I wonder whether Mr Hughes is still working for the Opposition, Mr Speaker. If he is, I do not know how much he is being paid. Obviously, the advice he is giving is not very palatable because it is not being followed.

Mr Speaker, let me go through a few specifics referred to in the debate. Mr Quinlan referred to us slugging our citizens, but this is the same Mr Quinlan who just a few days ago said to the Territory Government that it deserved credit for having matched revenue measures with those from other States. He said on 2CN, "Well, I mean, obviously our revenue effort has to match that of the States". Mr Speaker, the insurance levy, for example, which we have imposed and which he criticised, and the car registration hikes he also opposed, actually do not even match New South Wales. In some cases they fall short of New South Wales. So again we have this contradictory face: "On one day I say you should match revenue measures in New South Wales. On the next day I say you should not". Again we have no idea of where the Opposition stands. What do they stand for? Who knows?

It is like a smorgasbord, Mr Speaker. A voter comes through the door and says, "I am concerned about the insurance levy". They respond, "Come over here; here is our criticism of the insurance levy". A voter says, "I am concerned about the superannuation liability not being addressed faster". They respond, "We will deal with that pretty quickly. Come over here and we will show you what we have here". Anything anyone wants they can find on Labor's smorgasbord. But, unfortunately, Mr Speaker, it adds up to a huge feast that nobody, they included, could possibly afford. We do not know how they would pay for it all. In budget week, when the budget reply is upon us, on the day when Mr Stanhope has 40 minutes to respond to the budget and takes 20 minutes to do so, we do not even know what they think.

Mr Stanhope regaled us with long comments about John Howard and the handmaiden of Howardism. I can understand why he would need to say that because of what is happening federally in the next few months, but I will give Mr Stanhope some advice. You are the Leader of the Opposition in the ACT. You need to be looking after, first and foremost, the people of the ACT. Your first job - - -

Mr Stanhope: You are not.

MR HUMPHRIES: That was not what people thought just three months ago, Mr Stanhope. They made a very clear decision about who they thought could best look after their Territory, and it was not those opposite, Mr Speaker. So, that is where we stand today. Today we have Labor saying, "It is all about John Howard". The connection is very hard to see. We are supposed to be paving a way for a GST. We have actually had criticism from the Insurance Council of Australia that our increase in the insurance levy is counterproductive, given the imminent arrival of a GST. So, Mr Speaker, how do you reconcile those two statements? Of course, you cannot.

Mr Speaker, let me go through some specifics that were mentioned by various members. Mr Wood attacked the rego rises. He said that they affected larger older cars. That is not true. We are raising registration levels only to New South Wales levels. That is a Labor government in New South Wales, remember. The changes affect only 71/2 per cent of

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .