Page 2465 - Week 08 - Thursday, 6 August 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
government to sell off Clare Holland House and buy Calvary. That may or may not have been a good idea. Ultimately we decided it was not.
I think a large part of why that all went to custard under this government’s watch was because it was seen as sneaky that this government had not properly communicated or properly consulted with the relevant communities and had tried to stitch it up. It was clear from that process, as it was from the school closures, that consultation was a sham. It was described by the participants as a sham. It was a PR exercise after the decision had been made.
Members of the Mocca community at Telopea Park probably feel the same way—that this has all been stitched up. I commend members of that community, and I commend Mr Doszpot for fighting back and saying, “Hang on. We’re not going to allow you as a government to roll over the top of us.”
In 2012 we remember the significant debate about tax reform—the triple your rates campaign that we all remember. That was brought in in that budget by Andrew Barr—a massive reform that was introduced. The government basically put out a line saying, “Your rates are never going to triple. Trust us; your rates will never triple, not in our lifetime.” That is what Mr Barr said. But we now know from everybody who has been getting a rates bill since that election and before that rates are going up on average across this town by 10 per cent a year, and in many cases by much more. Our rates are tripling. The people of Canberra were lied to, pure and simple.
The biggest of them all, perhaps, is light rail. The government have a chance to get this right. What they can do is go to the next election and say, “We want to build light rail. These are our arguments and these are our concerns. This is why we want to do it, and we want to bring the community with us.” It can say, “Come with us, community,” and the people can have their decision. The way they can do that is at the 2016 election. If this government decide, “No, screw the community,” as they did at the previous three elections, then the choice they have is to sign the contracts. If they decide that, rather than allow the people of the ACT to have their say, they are going to sign contracts against the will of this community, they will pay the price. Again, this government are denying the people of the ACT the ability to have their say. They are arrogant, out of touch and bloody minded.
Mr Rattenbury: You’d recognise “arrogant” when you saw it.
MR HANSON: I note the interjections from Mr Rattenbury have started because he feels particularly precious about this issue, and we know he does.
Mr Rattenbury: No, it’s your rank double standard, Mr Hanson, that I am responding to.
MR HANSON: He feels very precious about this issue. He is interjecting and he is getting antsy because he knows he is the one almost directly responsible for the fact that the people of the ACT will have this contract signed by this government without them having their say. And I can tell you that the response will be significant. If you want to do that, you will do it at your own peril. I plead with you again not to do it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video