Page 5514 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 17 November 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The Deputy Chief Minister has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt in her contribution today that she is ready to take over the Labor leadership because she has learnt very well from her mentor. There was the arrogance in her delivery. “Oh well, prices have gone up; whoop-de-do!” was the fundamental message. “So what? Big news!” A 75 per cent rates increase is the impact on households, and this Treasurer says, “Oh well, everyone knows they’re going up; what’re you going to do about it?” Seventy-five per cent, and over 100 per cent on water: “So what?”
The breathtaking arrogance of the Treasurer in her delivery was extraordinary. It does show beyond a shadow of a doubt that she has learnt very well from her mentor how to be dismissive of the concerns of the community, how to be dismissive of real costs on households and real impacts on households as a result of government policy.
The Treasurer made what was really a very fraudulent argument in claiming that this was a venomous motion; therefore it had to be defeated and all we wanted was for it to go down. No, we do not want it to go down; we want it to be supported. We actually want a cost of living statement. We would have thought that any reasonable person would not have a problem with that, but the Greens and the Labor Party have chosen not to support it.
In making that fraudulent argument, the Treasurer could not actually point to things that were wrong with the motion. I read it and I cannot see the venom. It points out the significant cost of living increases and it calls on the government to do something about it and to consider it, which they clearly have not been doing.
We see the attitude again from the Treasurer and from the Chief Minister. They do not fundamentally care about these issues. It was evident in their delivery. “So what? So what if people are paying an extra 75 per cent for their rates? So what if they’re paying an extra 70 per cent for their electricity? So what if they’re paying over 100 per cent extra for their water, these fundamentals of life? So what?” We do believe it is important. We do believe it is worth raising in this place and we do believe it is worth keeping this government accountable for how it deals with this.
If you were to believe the government’s amendment—the Labor Party’s amendment, Mr Stanhope’s amendment—and the words in Ms Hunter’s amendment, you would think that the government had no impact on any of these things. You read Mr Stanhope’s amendment and you read Ms Hunter’s amendment, which have some similarities, and you would think they had nothing to do with it. Why do we even have a government? They cannot influence anything, it seems, according to the Greens and the Labor Party. It is all someone else’s fault.
Can they impact electricity prices? No, they are set by the ICRC—nothing to do with any of the policy settings of the government. Apparently, it has nothing to do with any of the policy settings. Can they impact water prices? No, that is the ICRC’s fault, too. “That’s the ICRC’s fault, nothing to see here. Not our fault. None of the policy settings, none of the taxes, make any difference.” Rents? They cannot influence those, apparently. Mr Smyth touched on it. What is the point of a housing affordability strategy if you cannot actually influence these things? Of course, you can influence
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video