Page 4203 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 23 October 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I wish to conclude my remarks this morning by responding to this oft repeated criticism of the Leader of the Opposition that somehow or other the policies here in the ACT are driving both population and economic activity over the border. Clearly, the population issue is debunked by the facts. We have seen very rapid growth in the ACT’s population. I note that from 2011 to 2016 Queanbeyan’s population actually went backwards. It went from 37,991 to 36,348 between 2011 and 2016. That does not include Googong. It may be that some people from Queanbeyan moved to Googong during that period. But Queanbeyan is not rapidly growing. It is not growing faster than the ACT. In fact, we are growing more strongly than the rest of our region, which belies the points raised by the Leader of the Opposition. We will not be supporting the motion today.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (11.41): Mr Coe has my utmost respect for his ability to make essentially the same motion different enough to move every sitting week. Thank you, Mr Coe. But at least it makes life a little more efficient for those of us who have to respond. The Greens’ position remains essentially the same on all these. We actually take poverty and hardship very seriously. We always have. We always will.
That is why yesterday we objected to the government increasing fines for vulnerable Canberrans. I note that the Liberal Party was quite happy to increase fines. And the fines that were talked about yesterday will almost exclusively be paid by vulnerable Canberrans.
Every sitting week, when Mr Coe’s motion arrives, I take a very careful look at it to see what parts of it I support, what parts I do not support and then what parts I might be able to make into something more useful for addressing poverty and hardship. What I am looking for are ways that the Greens can turn a political attack into something that might actually help Canberrans in poverty.
Last time the topic of the week was rental affordability. I was very pleased out of that to be able to find some modest actions which I thought might get support from the Assembly. They were passed by the Assembly and, hopefully, will now be delivered. Land taxes is one I have been banging on about for over a decade. I am very pleased to see that that relief will be extended. This will help, in a small but hopefully important way for at least a few low-income households in Canberra, to increase the supply of affordable housing.
This week I have not been quite as imaginative and positive with Mr Coe’s motion. I am not going to be moving an amendment to it. The Labor Party is not either. I will be voting against it. I must say that I find the way that Mr Coe is using the serious issues of poverty and financial hardship as a series of political attacks to be very frustrating. The motions in general do not call on the ACT government to do anything that is actually achievable. I emphasise the words “ACT government”. A number of them—not this one, admittedly—have completely bypassed the facts and linked the ACT government to problems which were caused by the federal government. The first one was a stunt, criticising the budget that had not even been released when the motion was written.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video