Page 736 - Week 02 - Thursday, 12 February 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The HIA in the ACT seems to have concerns because of their management of the planning system. We have further concerns because of their management of major capital works projects. We have seen it time and again. And that is why the Chief Minister can’t back up anything he says. That is why he has to make stuff up to try and back up his argument. It is simply not true. He can’t back it up. He has no facts to back it up. The facts here are very clear.
I will be moving an amendment. This amendment will note that there are positive aspects to the stimulus package—something we have said consistently. It will also note the ACT Treasurer’s failure to answer even basic questions on the impact of the economic stimulus package. It notes the importance of scrutiny in the expenditure of taxpayers’ money in any package and expresses concern about the Stanhope-Gallagher government’s ability to deliver capital works projects. I move the amendment:
Omit all words after “(1)”, substitute:
“(1) notes that there are a number of positive aspects to this stimulus package;
(2) notes that the ACT Treasurer has failed to answer even basic questions on the impact of the economic stimulus package;
(3) notes the importance of scrutiny in the expenditure of taxpayer’s money in any package; and
(4) expresses concerns about the Stanhope Gallagher Government’s ability to deliver capital works projects.”
This amendment sums up the argument. It cuts through the falsehoods that we have heard consistently from the Chief Minister and it puts the facts on the table. It is reasonable to ask the question of this government: given their record, given the concerns raised by the HIA, how are they going to get done? Well, we have asked those questions and we have had only the flimsiest of answers. They do not know because they have not asked. Their other proposition is that any package put forward by the Rudd government should be accepted without question.
Let us get to the bottom of this. Jon Stanhope is saying that because it is a Labor federal government, we should accept it without question. Certainly, he is. He and his government are accepting without question that this package is absolutely right. Every last detail of it should be supported; no questions should be asked. And any questions that are asked, particularly about this government’s capacity to deliver, are out of order, and are somehow not in the best interests of the city.
The Chief Minster has not backed up that claim. He has not made any logical argument. All he has done is blindly accept it, and he has made false claims about what the opposition has said and has not said. We have said there are a number of aspects which may well be beneficial. We came out on the first day and supported part of this package. We came out on the first day and said, “This is good policy.” We did not believe it was good policy only before Kevin Rudd announced it. The Chief Minister, prior to the election, did not believe it was good policy, but when Kevin Rudd announced it, it was a beauty.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .