Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 7 Hansard (20 June) . . Page.. 2161 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

phone calls and emails from people who resent the way Mr Smyth has misrepresented the fact that they have applied for this pass. It is in no way a statement of support. It is a statement that this is something that is happening now so they will apply, because why wouldn't they? But they would much rather have seen a more thoughtful approach to the expenditure of this money.

I will make the point again. If all government services were cut but everyone was given a cash payment, wouldn't people take it? Of course they would. But it does not mean they would think that was good government. If that is the strength of the government's arguments and if that is a demonstration of the sophistication of government understanding of community response, then clearly it is a government which is mean, tricky and very out of touch.

The claim that the government is merely keeping faith with an election promise exposes the government as entirely cynical and self-seeking. It demonstrates to the wider community and to us in the Assembly, although we are already pretty aware of it, that this government will always find significantly more funds for its pet projects and for its vote buying exercises than it will for proper community investment.

It is in fact a question of priorities. We could run through a countless list of election promises from 1995 that have not been kept. At the 1998 election the government promised that it would not sell Actew, yet we are well aware that it made absolutely every attempt to do so. I would have thought that any outstanding election promise from 61/2 years before carries little weight compared to ensuring the principle that public policy is carefully developed and public money is not spent recklessly. I would think that that should be the overriding principle always of government decisions about expenditure of public money.

There has not been discernible ongoing community interest or agitation for the proposal, there was no discussion of the issue by the government in the past three years, and no mention of the scheme even at the last election which gave the government its mandate, if a minority government can be said to have a mandate, for this term. If an election promise is made, we do not expect the government to keep it in their back pocket for 61/2 years and then whip it out to delight or appal us at the last possible moment. If the promise is important, we expect to see it implemented properly, and we would like the chance to appreciate the impact of that initiative before it comes time to vote again.

"We keep our promises" rings very shallow when the promise has lost its meaning for the bulk of the community, when the promise has long been confined to the dustbin of history, when the promise is simply a device to justify a fairly naked vote-buying exercise, and when the promise has been superseded by many other promises. The promise to consult with the community on major initiatives has to be mentioned

I will also briefly address this argument of free choice. There is an argument here, but unfortunately it is an argument which results in entrenching advantage and absolving the government of its fundamental duties to govern for all citizens and to put a fair go for all at the top of its agenda.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .