Page 2120 - Week 06 - Thursday, 7 May 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
not, as the Liberals had previously believed, been personally responsible for the subprime meltdown in the United States, the credit crisis and the consequent world recession. I am sure she is now sleeping rather better at night, having been relieved of that particular burden of accusation.
The crux of the Leader of the Opposition’s difficulty with the ACT budget delivered this week seems to be that, because we want to consult with the community, because we want to consult with our agencies and because we want to consult with the families whose livelihoods depend on the decisions we make, our vision is flawed and we have no exit strategy from recession. To see a flawed vision, Madam Assistant Speaker, you only need to look at the one Mr Seselja took to the voters last October and which the voters, the people of Canberra, rejected so roundly and soundly. I have made the comment before that that is put in stark perspective by the fact that even Mr Smyth, as Leader of the Opposition, achieved a higher result for the Liberal Party than Mr Seselja was able to achieve.
Mr Smyth: Mr Seselja got more votes than you.
MR STANHOPE: No, he did not. You know he did not.
Opposition members interjecting—
MR STANHOPE: That is simply not true. You know it is not true. It is simply wrong. It is interesting to note the sensitivity about this last election.
Mr Smyth: You are sensitive.
MR STANHOPE: It is interesting to me that Mr Seselja is the second least successful Liberal Party leader after Trevor Kaine since self-government and probably, in the context of the vote, the second least successful Liberal leader in any parliament in any jurisdiction in Australia since the Second World War. I think a 31 per cent return to Mr Seselja probably represents the second worst result by a Liberal leader in an election in any jurisdiction in Australia since the Second World War. That was the verdict of the people of Canberra on the savings measures that the Liberal Party proposed in the context of the election and which they do not resile from today.
We saw that flawed vision today; it is the vision that was expressed and put to the people of Canberra last October. It is a vision that would have seen somewhere in the order of 200 public servants lose their jobs—and that was just on a $50 million package—and swingeing cuts to government service delivery, even in the best of times—cuts that were required to pay for a handful of ideological pieces of flim-flam. It looks like what they want to do now is keep that vision intact. I think that was the message that was delivered on Triple 6 this morning. That is the vision, and that is the vision that will be maintained. Of course, there is still another $100 million. I think the outcome might be even more gruesome than that previously proposed.
What is the plan that was articulated today? What is the Liberal Party’s strategy? What is the alternative? What does the alternative Chief Minister and the alternative government think should be done now? What is the leadership they intend to show? Is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .