Page 2876 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
does the government do then? The government will vote no, of course, but what will the Greens do? What will the Greens do if the position is the motion that I moved or nothing? I challenge the Labor Party to vote no to the amendment so the Greens can be put in a position where they have to make a call based on my motion. I would like to see some leadership from the Greens. I would like to see some leadership on whether they are going to support the 49 per cent tax on students. I would ask the Labor Party to vote no to the amendment and put the Greens in that position.
What we have here is a system that is not equitable. A 49 per cent increase is not equitable. It will be in force from next Wednesday, for all time, I am quite confident, because the review will come back as a negative. If the Greens were serious about trying to get a review and reinstating the student fares, why would they not have added it to my motion? Why have they sought to delete all words? Why would they not have put in a paragraph (4) calling on the ACT government to review the impact on low income earners? Why did they not do that? They could have done that. That was on the cards; that could have happened. Instead, they said: “No. We’re not going to have the part of the motion which causes the government to abolish the 49 per cent.”
The Greens have abolished the section calling on the government to do something immediately and have substituted something else. They could have had two bites of the cherry by putting in a fourth paragraph to my motion which was, in effect, their paragraph (2). That would have been a much more palatable outcome, I would have thought, for the Greens, but obviously not. There is still time, of course, for the Greens to amend their own amendment, but I am sceptical as to whether that will happen. As I said, I think the 49 per cent tax on students is inequitable. It is simply because the government cannot manage their finances and have been forced to go to students to try and bring in some revenue.
MR HARGREAVES (Brindabella—Minister for Disability and Housing, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Corrections) (3.55): In speaking to Ms Bresnan’s amendment, I think I need to address some of the things that Mr Coe said which were possibly born of ignorance because he was not here around the time when we had such enormous disruption to the bus services generally. I think he was still in school at the time—that was in 2006—primary school probably. Therefore, he would have got the benefit from the concession fares. Madam Assistant Speaker, let us just take some of the things he said. First of all, he described this thing as a tax. That is very flowery wording but it is actually incorrect. A fare increase is not a tax; it is an increase. Get it through; it is an increase.
Mr Coe: Tell that to someone buying a ticket.
MR HARGREAVES: Did I hear you in silence?
Mr Coe: No, you did not.
MR HARGREAVES: All right then. Bring, it on sunshine; I am ready for you. The first thing we will talk about, Mr Coe, is your understanding of network 06 and network 08—nil, zip, diddly-squat.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .