Page 1922 - Week 05 - Thursday, 5 May 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
certainly seems to bring complexity and closed-door decisions. Perhaps this is why the property industry are so concerned that they believe inner city property values may be hit by as much as $100,000. But, of course, according to the Treasurer, it is okay; it is all going to be absorbed. I think it is clear that the real purpose of this tax is to raise more revenue—not, as we have already proven, because it is necessary or the community “demands” it, but because the ACT Labor government wants it.
I would now like to touch on some of the other achievements and alternatives we have pursued over the year. We anticipated issues in childcare by offering straightforward, cost-effective solutions to establish a free, centralised waiting list for ACT parents and called on the government to conduct an audit of childcare services to determine capacity gaps for services. To his credit, Mr Stanhope can still recognise a sensible cost-effective policy when he sees it. But Ms Burch saw this as nothing more than a thought bubble. No wonder she is consistently bested by her opposite number on this issue, Mrs Dunne.
We had pushed for more efficient payment practices by government agencies in their engagements with the business community. This was even more apparent last year when we received a rash of representations from local registered training organisations who complained of late payments from the government, some as late as six months. That is why I put forward “a promise to pay” policy from government to small business in last year’s budget reply.
We continue to push the benefits of the Infrastructure Canberra Bill for comprehensive reforms for infrastructure delivery. This has industry support and is now before the Assembly. Better infrastructure development means less wastage of taxpayers’ money, leading to a more productive economy for our children to inherit. Better planning and infrastructure means better land release and better infill. This will genuinely contribute to housing affordability.
We have also led the way on other planning changes, some of which have been picked up, at least in part. We listened to the Kambah community and successfully moved that a master plan be developed for the Kambah Village shopping precinct. We listened to the residents in Macarthur and successfully moved that the government take concrete action to address traffic noise on Isabella Drive. We called for and got the Weston Creek master plan, against some baffling opposition from ACT Labor. We kept pushing for the Gungahlin pool, and we will be keeping an eye on that. It would be amazing if we went to an election with a promise by ACT Labor to build a pool for the third term in a row and it still was not built.
We also stood up for Gungahlin residents in a raft of other ways, from roads and crossings to speaking up for the open spaces and playing fields that were promised but again not delivered. While we will be looking at the Gungahlin office move more closely in the months to come, it seems that the shopfront has been delayed again while we spend some money on a feasibility study, again, while Gungahlin residents and businesses are kept waiting—again.
Fighting for the right of Canberrans to better healthcare delivery, the Canberra Liberals prompted an Assembly inquiry into options for hospital expansion in the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video