Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 2 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 448..
MS TUCKER: Mr Stanhope interjects, "We are in government in the ACT." I thought I had just explained that we have a responsibility, as every citizen does, and if we have an understanding of environmentally or socially destructive activities we make our voice heard.
We have intergovernmental discussion on many subjects in this country. We are a nation of states that talk to each other because we think that is appropriate. All I have asked is that this government talk to their Labor colleagues, the government in New South Wales, and put in a strong and informed submission to express concern-which is what any submission would do if anyone looked at the facts-to the New South Wales government, asking them to take seriously the environmental implications of this particular policy.
This policy is based on a political imperative of the Carr government. That is the reality. I was hoping that this government would put in a submission based on the facts and that, as a government that claims to be committed to ecologically sustainable development in the ACT, they would have an understanding that they cannot separate themselves from what is happening on the South Coast. There is no credibility in that position.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion (by Mr Quinlan ) proposed:
That the Assembly do now adjourn.
MR HUMPHRIES (Leader of the Opposition) (6.16): Mr Speaker, I want to briefly comment on a question asked in question time today by Ms Macdonald of the Treasurer about the latest report of Standard and Poor's. Mr Quinlan has put out a media release about this, and I want to comment on that question.
There is some evidence in the press release of a desire-a craving almost-by Mr Quinlan for financial recognition or rectitude. A man whose costing program in the ACT election campaign recently was fairly suspect now seeks someone to say, "Yes, it was a great idea."
The test of the financial plan which they put out in October, in the dying days of the election, is not whether it has been ticked off by Standard and Poor's but whether it is the same kind of program which is reflected in the budget to be brought down in June of this year. As I have said before in this place, I think that what Mr Gerritsen suggested was that the costing of Labor's promises is going to be vastly out of proportion to the costing Labor put forward.
When Mr Quinlan gave his answer, it was very hard to tell just where the quotes of Standard and Poor's ended and Mr Quinlan's commentary began. In perusing Hansard it will be very interesting to see whether everything that seemed to be said by Standard and Poor's ends up in quote marks attributed to them.