Page 2727 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
be able to properly celebrate a hundred years of this wonderful city that we are so privileged to live in.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (5.10): I would like to respond briefly to Ms Hunter, because I think there is a real contradiction in the message the Greens have given on this budget. It is interesting to hear the odd little cheap shot, but what we had on day one from Ms Hunter was her holding up the budget and saying what a wonderful win it was for the Greens. Then we had a process that we went through with two Greens members, one Labor member and two Liberals where there were a lot of damning findings about the budget. But, of course, the Greens had already signed off on it. Ms Hunter had already signed off on it in the agreement.
We actually heard a bit of the debate today about the agreement on the radio—whether or not it is fluid. It seems to me that the agreement is fluid in terms of what Labor will deliver on policy because we heard Mr Hargreaves this week. He is not delivering on the public housing promise. We saw the press release. He pointed out how much it would cost. That is in the agreement. That is actually in the agreement.
Mr Hargreaves: Have another read of it.
MR SESELJA: We have read it, don’t worry. What we are actually seeing is that none of the major policies are being delivered on but Ms Hunter is signing off on the budget nonetheless. So the question they will have to answer at some point to their constituents is: why are they signing off on a budget that does not deliver on the half-hour buses, that does not deliver on the public housing promise?
Ms Hunter: Redex trial.
MR SESELJA: The Redex trial was not mentioned. I did not see the Redex trial mentioned in the agreement. I saw half-hour buses mentioned. We do have this contradiction. Indeed, it is a contradiction between what was said on the day and then subsequently, once we have had actually had a look at the budget through the estimates process, the genuine and real concerns about the lack of a plan. The problem I think with ticking off on it sight unseen is seen in the attitude this government has to answering questions about the budget.
Mr Hargreaves: You have not given us any questions about the budget because you did not read it.
MR SESELJA: Apparently, Minister Hargreaves does not believe that this question is about the budget: how much has been budgeted in 2009-10 for advertising and marketing? That to me sounds like a budget question. There are a number of questions like this. Of course, the Chief Minister complained about questions. He said there were trivial questions. He asked why he should have to answer questions about roads, rates and rubbish. Why should that be his role? Why should public servants’ time be wasted answering questions about how their money is spent in the Department of Territory and Municipal Services? But this is the problem with ticking off on the budget without seeing the detail, because they still will not give us the detail. They want us to vote on a budget but they tell us they cannot provide the detail. So I have asked a series of questions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .