Page 469 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 17 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
But that is code for removing a range of important safeguards. We heard, again, that dichotomy where there is inconsistency in the policy position—promise everything. But let us see the reality of it. Mr Hanson gave us a spiel on the fact that we need to protect our bush capital, but he wants to make it easier to clear that bush capital and build houses on it. That is what we heard him say this morning. That is the reality of it.
We know this Liberal Party is committed to rolling back our renewable energy targets and our greenhouse gas reduction targets. They have made that clear in this place, and that is not the position Canberrans want. We know they want serious actions on these issues. We know they perceive themselves not just as local Canberrans but as global citizens who have to do their part to protect the future of not just this city but all future generations and people right across this planet.
I will not be supporting this motion today. I will be supporting Mr Barr’s amendment. I think this provides a much more balanced account than the fantasy case we have seen Mr Hanson put forward this morning. (Time expired.)
MR HANSON (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (10.40): Madam Speaker, we will not be supporting the amendment, you will not be surprised to hear. But let me say that I am actually greatly encouraged by the response from those opposite. Instead of critiquing the priorities of the Canberra Liberals, what I said in my speech, both Mr Barr and Mr Rattenbury spent about 95 per cent of their time critiquing the federal Liberal government. They are welcome to do so, but the reality is that what we are talking about here are the priorities of the Canberra Liberals as opposed to the priorities of the ACT Greens and the ACT Labor Party. It may be interesting to talk about the federal Liberal Party and the federal Labor Party, but if that is all they have got to critique my priorities, they are on thin ground. I invite them to read my speech and next time listen to what I have to say, critique what I have to say, rather than defaulting to the mantra that the federal Liberal government is bad and therefore that is the only case they have to make.
These two men are contending for the position of Chief Minister in October, and they need more of a critique on us than simply a critique about the federal Liberal Party. Let me say very clearly that we want as much funding as we can have from the federal government no matter who it is. I have been consistent across the board when we have called for that additional funding, be it in health or be it in supporting jobs.
Andrew Barr says that he has never seen me say anything about this. Rubbish. I have been on the front page critiquing the federal government, and I will do so whether it is Liberal or Labor. But I am still proud to have a photo with the Prime Minister, with my federal leader. Where was Mr Barr when Kevin Rudd was taking what he called his meataxe to the federal public service here in Canberra, stripping thousands of jobs? And where is the photo of Andrew Barr with Bill Shorten?
The reality is that this is about decisions that need to be made. This is about priorities. As much as Mr Rattenbury complains that we are making this a juxtaposition between our priorities for all of Canberra as opposed to light rail, there is a significant truth in that. Light rail, particularly a light rail network, will take hundreds millions of dollars that could otherwise be spent on other priorities. That is what politics is about. The
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video