Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 5 Hansard (10 May) . . Page.. 1359 ..
MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):
On the question of the rebate, I mentioned yesterday that Mitchell was one of the suburbs that were to be included. In fact, it is not for Mitchell; the suburbs are Hall, Oaks Estate, Symonston, which I think includes Hume, but it is not entirely clear at this stage, and Tharwa. Mr Speaker, I was struck by the curiosity of being attacked on the question of the limitations in the diesel-
Mr Stanhope: It was just a question.
MR HUMPHRIES: No, it was not just a question; it was an attack on the limitations in the federal government's diesel fuel rebate scheme. "How dare you not wring some concession from the federal government to have the lines drawn differently on the map!" Mr Speaker, I am reminded since yesterday that, in fact, it was not the position of the federal government to have lines on a map. The federal government's position was that there should be a rebate scheme applying across the whole of Australia, to every Australian citizen.
Why is there not a rebate scheme applying across the whole of Australia. It is because the Australian Labor Party, in the federal Senate, said, "We are not going to be a part of this. We are opposed to everything you do with this rebate scheme and all the other tax reform measures. We are crossing our arms and keeping our lips sealed tight. If you want to get this through, you have to go off and do a deal with the Australian Democrats."
If Mr Stanhope and Mr Quinlan really think that they could do better on that score, perhaps they ought to start by going and speaking with their federal Labor colleagues now-now-and getting them to change their position on the rebate arrangements and agree to support a rebate scheme which covers every Australian, metropolitan and rural.
MS TUCKER: My question is directed to the Minister for Urban Services. Minister, yesterday you read out a statement from David Gower, the president of the Gungahlin Community Council. Let me take the liberty today of reading out what Mr Gower said to the urban services committee last Friday at its hearing into the Gungahlin Drive extension. This is taken from the draft transcript, so it could contain some errors; but the substance is quite clear. Mr Gower said:
In discussions with PALM and members from Mr Smyth's office, it was intimated that the government would be pressing for one option, and one option only ...
Pressure was put on us to a degree that if we did not support the government's option, which is the eastern alignment, we would not get a road ...
At the recent meeting we had Brendan Smyth, at our March monthly meeting of the community council and in a private discussion as he was walking out of that meeting, he said to me, quietly, "If the eastern route does not get up, then Gungahlin will not get a road."
Mr Smyth, did those conversations occur?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .