Page 165 - Week 01 - Wednesday, 13 February 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STANHOPE: We now go back to the past: the refrain is “What about 1990?” I find it so cynical and so amazing that the level of concern that Mr Seselja expresses for young Canberra families is: “Oh, it’s not as bad as it was 20 years ago.” It is a repeat: “They’ve never had it so good.” The sympathy that young Canberra families—in significant mortgage stress already—receive from the Liberal Party in this place is: “Oh, it’s not that bad.” Mr Seselja now says, “They’ve never had it so good.” He does not care about young families. He does not care about inflation. He does not care about interest rates. (Time expired.)
MR SPEAKER: Mr Stefaniak, a supplementary question?
MR STEFANIAK: Chief Minister, did you argue against the plans to make cuts to the NCA, and why did you fail to persuade your federal colleagues about the importance of this project to the future of Canberra?
MR STANHOPE: I did argue, and I continue to argue. I continue to make representations. I have met on a number of occasions with a number of officials. I have met with the chairman of the NCA, Michael Ball. My officials are continuing to meet with the NCA. The NCA and the ACT government are involved in a joint project of review of planning arrangements within the territory, work that was agreed between Mr Debus and me at our last meeting. Our officials are meeting; our officials are in discussion. NCA and ACT government ACTPLA authority officials are meeting. Indeed, Mr Neil Savery and Ms Annabelle Pegrum are leading a group that is looking at the extent to which the NCA, representing the commonwealth, and ACTPLA can agree on a new regime that might be reflected in legislative change for the planning of the ACT.
In relation to Constitution Avenue and the Griffin legacy cuts, I regret them enormously, particularly insofar as they do represent a reneging of an arrangement that was entered into by the previous government with my government in relation to the upgrade and maintenance of Constitution Avenue and other roads. That is a matter of deep regret to me. I have made and continue to make representations. I am in correspondence with the commonwealth in relation to Constitution Avenue, and I will, of course, seek to negotiate a way through and perhaps a return to a commitment to upgrade Constitution Avenue. There are a range of issues—
Mrs Dunne: You just rolled over.
MR SPEAKER: I warn you, Mrs Dunne.
MR STANHOPE: There are a range of issues that we are currently discussing, but the cut to the Griffin legacy is a matter of enormous regret. I do not use this as an excuse, but one of the differences between the Griffin legacy cuts and other cuts announced in the package of $650 million or thereabouts is that the moneys for the Griffin legacy were actually appropriated. It set them apart from some of the other initiatives, such as the fishing hall of fame et cetera—
Mr Stefaniak: We’re talking about the Griffin legacy.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .