Page 4213 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 21 September 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
motion does not go anywhere near that and that is why we cannot support it. This motion is not well thought out. They have been caught out. They have been caught out for the fact that for the last three years they have not been serious about this and now they are looking ahead to October next year and saying, “We had better chalk up some wins for the people of the ACT,” because to date they do not have much to show for it.
I commend my amendment to Mr Corbell’s amendment. Really, it is just a statement of facts: in 2001 and 2008 ACT Labor promised to conduct feasibility studies. And, as acknowledged, I think, by Ms Bresnan in her speech, there has not been progress. I agree with Ms Bresnan on that: there has not been progress—just a statement of the policies that we put forward. My amendment is a statement of fact. I think it should be supported. Certainly we will not be supporting the motion as it stands.
To sum it up, you have got to do the work. Just pretending that you have got a plan when you have not—just putting out a long motion that covers all sorts of issues, without doing the work, knowing that it is unachievable—is not being fair dinkum with the community, and you will be found out. This kind of spin that we are now getting from both the Labor Party and the Greens, where they pretend to do something when they are not doing anything, needs to be called for what it is. We will support good policy. We will support considered policy and considered motions—not what is being put to us today. (Time expired.)
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development, Minister for Territory and Municipal Services and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (4.07): The government will not be supporting Mr Seselja’s amendment because the Liberals have no credibility on the issue of investment in public transport. I draw Mr Seselja’s attention to the comments of the shadow minister for territory and municipal services during question time today where he criticised the cost of running the ACTION bus service and he saw it as a costly subsidy being imposed on Canberra households. That was Mr Coe’s criticism less than two hours ago, and yet his leader stands up in this place and says: “No, we’re very serious about having a look at the cost of light rail. Very serious.” But his shadow spokesperson—the person he would appoint as the minister to run the system—is saying that running public transport is too expensive
Opposition members interjecting—
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Hargreaves): Stop the clock please. I remind you, Mr Smyth, particularly—your name is on this list—and Mr Seselja, I have just stepped into the chair and I will not have the interjections across the floor. I highlight to you that in some case I may have no choice but to invoke the standing order. I would prefer not to, but I will.
Mr Seselja: I thank you for the advice, Mr Assistant Speaker, but I raise a separate point of order in relation to relevance. The amendment Mr Corbell is speaking to is pretty specific, and he has not gone anywhere near it. So I would ask you to ask him to be relevant.
MR CORBELL: There is no point of order. You don’t like the criticism, do you?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video