Page 765 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 1 May 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
through the creation of a bank and a loan facility to the residents of the ACT. It would cost, on the Liberal Party’s own costings, $100 million of open-ended loans. You would have to create a bank. Mr Mulcahy is going to go into the business of banking, if he ever becomes Treasurer, in order to provide $10,000 loans to 10,000 houses at just an up-front cost in terms of the loan facility of $100 million, let alone the cost of actually managing this bank and administering the 10,000 loans that will be delivered through this particular facility. And he thinks the people are going to take him seriously as Treasurer. What a ripper!
Mr Mulcahy: They do.
MR STANHOPE: You are just going to leave it at 10,000 houses, are you? There are 130,000; what about the other 120,000? Are you going to go to a billion dollars to meet the needs of every household under this bright policy that you are now championing? I must say that Mr Mulcahy likes to dine out on the fact that if he gets the reins he will be a responsible economic manager. Mr Mulcahy cannot resist, though; he is out there slashing taxes and charges all over the place. He has now promised to resurrect a bank proposal, which was completely discredited at the last election. I cannot believe that he has resurrected it; that it is alive and well and will be implemented by a Liberal government in which Mr Mulcahy is Treasurer—heaven forbid.
An open-ended loan facility, at a minimum cost of $100 million to start off, to kick off—a hundred million bucks—is what Mr Mulcahy has said he will champion as Treasurer in relation to an open-ended loan facility to deal with issues around greenhouse gas emissions. Let me tell you, Mr Mulcahy: I know you have not got your hands on the levers and you have not seen the books. But we cannot afford to establish a bank. We cannot afford a $100 million loan facility. Your colleagues tried it before you got here and were thrashed soundly—and with policies like that you will be again. It is an absolute nonsense. I think that is the last hurrah in relation to any attempt that you might make to create or sell the fact that you would be a responsible economic manager—because you quite clearly would not be.
We have seen in the context of this debate, too, an incredibly grimy attack on ACT public servants through question time today and, of course, intended to be leveraged here today in this matter of public importance. (Time expired.)
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (4.42): I want to take the opportunity to say a few things. My concerns are somewhat different from Mrs Burke’s, but they are also on the general topic of accountability. Time passes quickly in this place and things are forgotten so it is sometimes worth going back and having a look at the record and checking out whether one ever did get satisfactory responses to questions asked.
On 7 February this year, I wrote to the Chief Minister outlining my concerns about the manner in which the ACT government had provided a one-off grant of $300,000 to Summernats without a formal contract or funding requirements. A number of constituents had contacted me, including members of community organisations that were facing very straitened circumstances, who had no idea that if you wrote a letter to the Chief Minister or the Treasurer, they might get a grant of $300,000. So I followed this up.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .