Page 5496 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 17 November 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
increase is 138 per cent. It is 138 across Australia and 124 in the ACT. Yes, they are challenging numbers; yes, they create very significant issues for some people within our community; and, yes, it is an issue that needs to be addressed. But what are the real numbers? The real number in the ACT is 124 per cent. The number across Australia is 138 per cent. The result here in the ACT is much better than the national result or the result across the rest of Australia. We have again, of course, the Real Estate Institute of Australia’s numbers in relation to housing affordability in the ACT, consistent with their particular index.
The Canberra Liberals cannot resist having another shot that none of these numbers or increases would have occurred if we had not established the arboretum. It appears that the illegitimate, unacceptable expenditure is, of course, down to the arboretum. So we would not have had increases in public transport costs and increases in electricity, water, housing or median prices if it had not been for the arboretum and the expenditure that that has attracted over the last four to five years.
I have iterated, and I will continue to iterate, the value of projects such as the arboretum. Indeed, I have to say it was a view shared by the 250 or so members of the veterans community and their families who gathered there with the Governor-General last Friday to plant a memorial Anzac forest within the arboretum, a significant event that was broadly applauded by the veterans community, embraced by 250 of their members, each of whom was thrilled and proud to plant a tree. I have to say it was very disappointing to note that not a single member of the Liberal Party accepted an invitation to be involved in that particularly significant, symbolic occasion. (Time expired.)
MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (10.32): I thank Mr Seselja for bringing forward this important matter today, because it goes to the heart of how our families live in the ACT. It is interesting to note that Mr Stanhope has introduced, as usual, a range of self-congratulatory and alternative figures rather than addressing the real issue. It is also interesting to note that Mr Stanhope leads this debate today. After the Treasurer had a go at leading the debate in the media today and obviously did such a bad job, they thought they had to bring out the big guns to protect her again.
The whole response of the Labor Party is pretty much Marie Antoinette’s response. It is a shame the Treasurer could not bring herself to say, “Let them eat cake,” but left that job to the Chief Minister. His response is: “Let them eat cake. It is expensive everywhere, so it is all right for it to be expensive here.”
I note the Greens, again, are proposing to snuggle up to the government with an amendment which is surprisingly similar in much of its tone, but it shows that the Greens are not in touch with the people who live and work and play in Canberra. I acknowledge that the proposals, for instance, for a poverty impact statement are important. But, as it is with everything with the Greens, they leave out the middle. I would like to talk about the sorts of families that are affected by the cost increases that Mr Seselja has outlined in his motion.
The Canberra Liberals put forward an assumption about a middle income family: Mick and Melinda live in Giralang and Mick earns $80,000. His wife works part time,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video