Page 3409 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 14 November 2007

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

---

I am not necessarily one who would quote Rupert Murdoch too often, but I took some comfort in what he said last night about big spending political parties and governments. He said this is just continuing to make people increasingly dependent on the state. There must be a point when the state concentrates on core issues, rather than saying, “We’ve got a swag of cash, let’s go on a spending spree,” but the one element of the spending that is not on the table is handing it back to the people who earn it.

This bill is put forward and provides an opportunity for members opposite—and I am pleased to be supported by the Greens movement—to show a modicum of integrity in terms of what they put forward to this Assembly a year ago. They voted on the basis of tax increases being imposed, because they said there was a pressing need to, in fact, fund the services of the territory. We were told we were living beyond our means. The fact of the matter is that the way this government approaches public management and the way it approaches expenditure of taxes is along the line of spending everything coming in the door. It is like walking out to Westfield Woden and just getting the credit card out at one door and going through until they start declining the card. This is what this government is all about. More money in, let us splash it around.

As Mr Pratt pointed out very clearly, if these things were as vital and essential as we have heard Mr Stanhope say today in question time and this afternoon, why were they not part of his budget that he presented to this place in June and was voted on only three months ago? Why were they so unimportant then, but are suddenly so important today? The fact of the matter is, Mr Speaker, that there is, in fact, an opportunity here for the government to splash the cash, to try and shore up its ailing reputation with the people of Canberra. But I do not believe that it is going to serve as a substitution for the level of poor management that we have seen in this territory.

Mr Stanhope took the opportunity to make wild and silly statements in relation to superannuation. The position on superannuation, as Mr Stefaniak pointed out previously and as I have said in subsequent debate following the budget debate, is that superannuation has to be recognised as something that is not available for the day-to-day operations of expenditures of government. I am conscious of the time, Mr Speaker. I will conclude my remarks, and I hope members will consider supporting this bill.

Question put:

That this bill be agreed to in principle.

The Assembly voted—

Question so resolved in the negative.

---

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