Page 788 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 27 February 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
out as much to retain the support of the Greens. Regardless of how much she needed to give away, the fact is that she gave away a lot to the Greens. The Greens went from an appalling result in the 2012 election—including losing their leader in amongst three casualties—yet they are somehow more powerful now than they were before. In some ways from a political level I congratulate Mr Rattenbury on driving such a hard bargain with the Labor Party, but it does not say much for the Chief Minister. It is no wonder people in the ALP are unhappy with her sell-out.
The Labor-Greens alliance is not just an irrelevant political arrangement with no tangible impact; it is and will continue to be a burden on families throughout Canberra. Their arrogant doctrine suggests that governments know best, that individuals are not equipped to make decisions. That is the state’s role; the state should be determining how people should be living their lives.
A consequence of this excess is the fact that the ACT budget is in deficit of $575 million over the forward estimates, as listed in paragraph (d) of the motion. This means we are loading up current and future generations with today’s overspending. There are consequences to such spending. Canberrans in the future will have to go without to pay for today’s current wastage.
Further evidence of the extravagance and mismanagement is the ACT budget report of an $82 million blowout in the 2012-13 budget review. Regardless of the indicator, the annual report, the question on notice or the reporting measure, this government does not represent good value for taxpayers. The ALP’s big spending election campaign saw them commit more than $1 billion over the forward estimates, yet it somehow does not include the things people really want, like green bins, additional car parking, credit card parking machines, flashing lights in school zones et cetera.
The ultimate indication of misuse of government authority is the Labor-Greens commitment to build light rail without any real knowledge of the cost. Just last week in committee hearings we heard the government confirm that there is no price for which they will abandon the project—that is, regardless of the cost to taxpayers, the government will continue on the ideological crusade to build something which may not stack up by way of finances, patronage, engineering or any other measure. I am worried this course of action could be pursued by a government in a developed country. I am not saying we should not explore the options, but we should do so methodically and not without consideration of the facts.
In the last sitting week I moved a motion calling on the government to provide information on the light rail project—they could be firm numbers or estimates—about the following: the time line for the decision making and construction progress; the expected cost to taxpayers of pre-construction and construction; the predicted patronage, running costs and staffing; the population within reasonable walking distance of a light rail stop; plans for park-and-ride facilities; the financial models for funding the project; and what feedback was received from Infrastructure Australia as a result of the 2008 federally funded proposal, which failed.
Why is it so unreasonable to expect answers to those questions? Those questions were all amended out of the motion by the government. Those questions are now listed on
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video