Page 2573 - Week 07 - Thursday, 18 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
with that plan. What they forget is that that plan actually does not deal with the issues that are being faced by the budget now. Their savings that they outlined in the pre-election plan only got them to square one. That was to pay for all the promises they made, their drunken spending spree that they went on in the election. They made all these commitments and then, oops, they have to work out how to actually pay for them.
Opposition members interjecting—
MS GALLAGHER: That is right. They had to have a bigger surplus than the Labor government. Whatever happened, they had to have a bigger one. So that got them to square one. Then this little tsunami called the global financial crisis came. And what happened then? What happened to everyone else? Everyone else has to revise their plans. The mistake the opposition has made, oops, is that they forgot that they have to revise their plan as well. The plan that they went to the election with was never going to address the issues that they would have had to face if they had won the election.
What does Zed say on 16 or 17 July, some eight or nine months since the election result was declared? He said, “We had a plan.” That plan that he took to the community in September is still his plan.
Mr Coe: Do you mean July?
MS GALLAGHER: In June, sorry. I correct the record. Still, eight months or so since the election, they are dusting off that plan that they took to the election that everyone said no to. That is still their plan. Then, when they realise that that is a bit old, that plan, does he have a plan? He says, “No, sorry. I have no plan.” That is one thing we have got out of the Assembly this week. It has almost been worth turning up to find out that the Liberals have no plan—confirmed by the great man himself, Mr Seselja. There is no plan. It has taken time, but it is out. (Time expired.)
Roads—funding
MS LE COUTEUR: My question is for the Minister for Territory and Municipal Services. Yesterday, minister, you may remember that I asked your colleague the Minister for Planning about the environmental impact statement for the proposed Majura parkway. He informed me that he was not responsible for this—that the proponent was, who I believe must be ACT Roads. My question is basically a repeat. Given that the government has not yet secured funding to build the parkway and the EIS says that major environmental impacts will result from the road, does the government accept that it could extend the time to consult on the EIS without affecting the project’s timing?
Mr Stanhope: Sorry, could you just repeat the last part of the question.
MS LE COUTEUR: Given that the EIS says that major ecological impacts will result from the road, does the government accept that it could extend the time to consult on the EIS without affecting the project’s timing—given that there does not appear to be funding secured for it as yet?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .