Page 5159 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 18 November 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
to market it in the right way, somehow people will believe that there are improvements, that there is action.
When it comes to public transport, we have seen the record in recent years from this government. We have seen constant chopping and changing on routes because they simply get it wrong. Some years ago we saw the gutting of a number of services and attempts to try and fix the significant damage to public confidence in our public transport system as a result of that. Now we have the stark facts that have been put on the table by Mr Coe in this motion—this well thought out, detailed and researched motion that Mr Coe has put forward. And we have not heard a counter-argument. We have not heard anyone say why he is wrong. We have not heard anyone say: “No; actually they are fast. They are actually fast. It is actually faster. What you say, Mr Coe, is wrong. When you say that 92 per cent are slower, you are wrong.” That is because he is not wrong: 92 per cent are slower, and he has pointed out how that is the case.
Again we see the Labor Party and the Greens not engaging in a debate on the facts, not looking at the numbers and the figures that are there for all to see. They resort to slogans. They resort to a lot of personal attack—that this was a vindictive motion. They were the words used by Ms Bresnan—that it is a vindictive motion: it is vindictive to bring forward facts and to put some facts into the debate; it is vindictive to critique the government when they get it wrong; it is vindictive, apparently, to hold the government to account for their promises.
Ms Bresnan: Oh, come on.
MR SESELJA: On this issue, what Mr Coe has highlighted and why we see such sensitivity across the chamber is this. We see such sensitivity across the chamber because they were hoping that no-one would ask questions, that no-one would actually do the detailed work to ask: “Is this the best use of $1 million in our public transport system? If we are going to spend this $1 million, is this the best way we can spend it? Will this get the maximum bang for our buck for commuters on our public transport system?” Clearly, that is not the case. Clearly, as has been demonstrated in great detail and at great length, that is not the case.
The sensitivity from the other side is evident. It is not surprising. When you so comprehensively debunk what the government have been saying, when you outline it in comprehensive detail, there will be sensitivity. But instead of coming back to us and saying, “You are wrong. This is why you are wrong. These are the facts,” we have not heard that. We have simply heard attacks from the other side. They do not like this being criticised, because they are trying to do a snow job on the people of the ACT on what they are actually delivering.
Let us be honest about this. This does not deliver faster services for the people of the ACT. It does not—in the vast majority of cases, in the vast bulk of cases—deliver faster services for the people of the ACT. Those facts need to be put on the table. Those facts should be debated. Those facts should be defended by those defending the trial, instead of resorting to slogans and the personal attacks that we so often see.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video